Two Rope Working Consultation

[stewmo]

Until detailed guidance becomes available the Association recommends climbers continue to climb following current safe practice, using 2 lines wherever practicable; but without trialling techniques and equipment which are unproven. 

 

As you were lads

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Jamie Jones said:

Not sure myself....

It will cost you a fortune to be fully certified with AA. And there will always be people who won't be registered with AA.

My view is that voluntary registration will always (predominantly) be driven by economic return on the investment of achieving accreditation. There may be some exceptions where personal pride plays a part, but that’s a bit foolish in a purely business sense. Those that seek larger, recurring contracts may benefit from the investment. Conversely, the domestic sector, where Mrs Miggins thinks the AA are there to fix her car, have little or no potential return on the investment - making it little more than a costly ego trip.  The problem here is that AA are simply not a common deciding factor in domestic work because not enough ‘Joe Public’ know who/what AA is. 

As for not being able to buying a chainsaw unless you are... Will never happen because sales will drop massively and the cost of a chainsaw will rise massively, possible 10 fold.
 

Never happen because the insidious lobbying influence of the NFU would never allow it to happen ?

They even sell top handle chainsaws at my local builders merchants.

Accreditation is a time and money issue - isn’t everything!

 

Fair play for the roll out of the small company option but until AA has a greater presence in the public domain it’s not for me. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

54 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Accreditation is a time and money issue - isn’t everything!

 

Fair play for the roll out of the small company option but until AA has a greater presence in the public domain it’s not for me. 

Fair comment Kevin, and thank you...however it is not until more small businesses become Approved that the "greater presence in the public domain" will be achieved (the comparison being 'public domain' awareness of 'GAS SAFE' or 'Fensa' for instance which has largely been achieved by people seeing stickers / logos on vans not by anything GAS SAFE or Fensa have done....and they are much, much larger organisations than we are tbf.)

Hope you're well..

Paul

  

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 hour ago, Jamie Jones said:

Thank you for the update..
Followed the link and it only goes to an update... Is there a link to the updated version of ICOP?

Hi Jamie,

 

The ICoP is still being revised in light of recent meetings with HSE after feedback from industry. We anticipate the final version will be released in April...2020! This will hopefully coincide with release of the redrafted Technical Guide 1 Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue which will replace the previous AA Guide to Good Climbing Practice.

 

Hope this helps..
Paul 

[Jamie Jones]

4 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Jamie,

 

The ICoP is still being revised in light of recent meetings with HSE after feedback from industry. We anticipate the final version will be released in April...2020! This will hopefully coincide with release of the redrafted Technical Guide 1 Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue which will replace the previous AA Guide to Good Climbing Practice.

 

Hope this helps..
Paul 

Hi Paul
Thank you for the update reply.... 
Are we allowed to know how the meeting went and how the points we have raised were taken on board by the HSE and if they actually understood the realities of the job and accepted that we need to operate differently. Or is there still battles to be had?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 hour ago, stewmo said:

Until detailed guidance becomes available the Association recommends climbers continue to climb following current safe practice, using 2 lines wherever practicable; but without trialling techniques and equipment which are unproven. 

 

As you were lads

aaaaagggghhhh, kinda.

 

However, the interpretation of the word 'practicable' in this context = wherever possible BUT it does not necessarily mean "2 ropes" as previously thought, although that may be an option in some cases (it is anticipated there will be 'omissions' from the "primary line + backup system" (2 lines) requirement, e.g. change-overs on ascent (ie short duration) but this has yet to be agreed / confirmed with HSE.

 

Hence please keep an open mind...but keep safe first using tried and tested techniques / systems.

 

Cheers,
Paul

[Pete Mctree]

Thanks Paul, do you know if there will be a chance for a review of the new guidelines as they are again radically different to the current ICoP. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

12 minutes ago, Jamie Jones said:

Hi Paul
Thank you for the update reply.... 
Are we allowed to know how the meeting went and how the points we have raised were taken on board by the HSE and if they actually understood the realities of the job and accepted that we need to operate differently. Or is there still battles to be had?

The meeting was generally positive and "the realities of the job" and staying commercially viable were highlighted to HSE but they highlighted the number accidents (major injuries and fatalities) which, simplistically, 'top trumped' our stance to some respects.

Bottom line it is for the industry to find a solution to the issues cited which meets the principles of the W@H regulations but a very positive move is labelling tree climbing, whether static or moving ropes, or in combination, as 'personal fall protection systems', appropriately, thereby avoiding the further higher level requirements of 'work positioning', a term previously commonly used, and ;rope access' (apologies if this is a bit detailed but it is important on a regulatory level.)  

To conclude I would say there is "still work to be done" rather than "battles to be had"...another positive!

Thanks...

Paul

[MattyF]

Has there been any interest or help offered from the ISA shown through this whole debacle?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

7 minutes ago, Pete Mctree said:

Thanks Paul, do you know if there will be a chance for a review of the new guidelines as they are again radically different to the current ICoP. 

Hi Pete, if by 'review' you mean further industry consultation then there is no proposal for such. 

 

The main changes relate to the issues in my previous post about definitions and interpretations relating to the W@H regulations and Schedule 5 which actually places less of a burden on industry (not sure that's an appropriate phrase when talking about H&S). 

 

Cheers,
Paul