Two Rope Working Consultation

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

2 minutes ago, Alexthetreesurgeon said:

    Yeah I saw that but it’s effectively the same thing. I think 2 lanyards is mega clunky so the other option is use a fall arrest on another rope. A fall arrest seems pointless too, when I could just use another rope wrench and at least have another system that is useful. 

Provided you have an effective 'backup system', in case the primary system fails for any reason, which I think is what you are proposing, then that's fine. Many climbers have chosen to adopt '2-rope working', in many/most cases, to very good effect so certainly worth considering as an option.

Probably academic, but just to clarify, that climbing systems we use fall under the 'fall protection' category rather than 'fall arrest.'

Cheers,

Paul

[Khriss]

2 hours ago, Pete Mctree said:

Or work out the exact specifications and limitations of the new guidelines & don’t behave like a sheep and follow everything blindly “for an easy life”.

.... I have ' an easy life'   without climbing ? ( One crew climb fine on 2Rope, other pair scream their tits off abt it) k

Edited July 15, 2020 by Khriss
( guess which crew do more work..... )

[Khriss]

2 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Provided you have an effective 'backup system', in case the primary system fails for any reason, which I think is what you are proposing, then that's fine. Many climbers have chosen to adopt '2-rope working', in many/most cases, to very good effect so certainly worth considering as an option.

Probably academic, but just to clarify, that climbing systems we use fall under the 'fall protection' category rather than 'fall arrest.'

Cheers,

Paul

.... Plus a fall arrest bungee pack means you will hit every branch on way down and bang yr head on way up again ? K

[Alexthetreesurgeon]

4 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Provided you have an effective 'backup system', in case the primary system fails for any reason, which I think is what you are proposing, then that's fine. Many climbers have chosen to adopt '2-rope working', in many/most cases, to very good effect so certainly worth considering as an option.

Probably academic, but just to clarify, that climbing systems we use fall under the 'fall protection' category rather than 'fall arrest.'

Cheers,

Paul

     Thanks Paul, but when i said “fall arrest“ I was referring specifically to the fall arrest device option you are proposing. 
   
      Secondly, I know my preferred option (2srts) is “two rope working” as opposed to “primary and back up systems.”   I was suggesting that the other options of either an extra mega long lanyard or a fall arrest device on a separate rope “basically” equate to “two rope working.”  I suppose there is a tiny bit of difference If people can use an extra long lanyard attached to a suitable anchor. But then it basically comes down to whether it’s clipped to your bridge or side d’s. So “effectively” making it what I would call “two rope working” 

   We could chat about phraseology all day long but how about we discuss the inadequacy of the industry “consultation” process (a one day jolly climb with a small amount of people and 2 really limited surveys after the event?)
    
      Or the integrity of the incident stats  relating to “Arb” that were used to implement this change to industry practice. (no methodology, sampling size,etc) 

    Personally I do not feel that there has been adequate real industry consultation or professional scientific analysis to make changes this big to people’s choices about their own safety. 
    Thanks Paul. From Alex.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

46 minutes ago, Alexthetreesurgeon said:

     Thanks Paul, but when i said “fall arrest“ I was referring specifically to the fall arrest device option you are proposing. 
   
      Secondly, I know my preferred option (2srts) is “two rope working” as opposed to “primary and back up systems.”   I was suggesting that the other options of either an extra mega long lanyard or a fall arrest device on a separate rope “basically” equate to “two rope working.”  I suppose there is a tiny bit of difference If people can use an extra long lanyard attached to a suitable anchor. But then it basically comes down to whether it’s clipped to your bridge or side d’s. So “effectively” making it what I would call “two rope working” 

   We could chat about phraseology all day long but how about we discuss the inadequacy of the industry “consultation” process (a one day jolly climb with a small amount of people and 2 really limited surveys after the event?)
    
      Or the integrity of the incident stats  relating to “Arb” that were used to implement this change to industry practice. (no methodology, sampling size,etc) 

    Personally I do not feel that there has been adequate real industry consultation or professional scientific analysis to make changes this big to people’s choices about their own safety. 
    Thanks Paul. From Alex.

Hi Alex, I'm afraid you've lost me somewhat here  ...sorry!

 

The current situation certainly offers more choice, in effect, than the previous one and, respectfully, this is the final opportunity to voice your opinions regarding the industry technical guidance (at this 2nd time of consulting, after the review of the ICoP, which was also consulted with industry on.) 

 

Clearly this whole issue, including the aspect of accident stats etc., will be viewed much different / much more going forward.

 

Please spend some time with the DRAFT document and let us have your views. Thank you.

 

Regards,

Paul

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 hours ago, Alexthetreesurgeon said:

     Thanks Paul, but when i said “fall arrest“ I was referring specifically to the fall arrest device option you are proposing. 
   
      Secondly, I know my preferred option (2srts) is “two rope working” as opposed to “primary and back up systems.”   I was suggesting that the other options of either an extra mega long lanyard or a fall arrest device on a separate rope “basically” equate to “two rope working.”  I suppose there is a tiny bit of difference If people can use an extra long lanyard attached to a suitable anchor. But then it basically comes down to whether it’s clipped to your bridge or side d’s. So “effectively” making it what I would call “two rope working” 

   We could chat about phraseology all day long but how about we discuss the inadequacy of the industry “consultation” process (a one day jolly climb with a small amount of people and 2 really limited surveys after the event?)
    
      Or the integrity of the incident stats  relating to “Arb” that were used to implement this change to industry practice. (no methodology, sampling size,etc) 

    Personally I do not feel that there has been adequate real industry consultation or professional scientific analysis to make changes this big to people’s choices about their own safety. 
    Thanks Paul. From Alex.

Maybe in 5 years time, when (if accurate) accident stats from (say) the preceding and next 5 years are laid side by side, we’ll see if it’s made any difference......

 

 

 

 

 

...... or not. 

[mtt.tr]

Isnt the simplest solution to this towing an asap or duck on a second line much like irata 

[Mr. Squirrel]

2 hours ago, mtt.tr said:

Isnt the simplest solution to this towing an asap or duck on a second line much like irata 

It’s been mentioned and covered numerous times, but the short answer is no. 
 

Industry consultation is great, in theory. In reality this is a face saving exercise, and I imagine all these responses just go straight up the chimney. 
I don’t know anyone who is pleased by these changes, and few that are compliant with them. All that’s really changed is a vast number of highly skilled arborists with excellent safety standards are now non-compliant.
Utter shambles. 

[mtt.tr]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

It’s been mentioned and covered numerous times, but the short answer is no. 
 

Industry consultation is great, in theory. In reality this is a face saving exercise, and I imagine all these responses just go straight up the chimney. 
I don’t know anyone who is pleased by these changes, and few that are compliant with them. All that’s really changed is a vast number of highly skilled arborists with excellent safety standards are now non-compliant.
Utter shambles. 

 

I cant personally think of anything more frustrating than having two lines.  All a complete nonsense. Seemingly with no evidence.  

 

I can't see how its possible to have 2 sperate anchors on a single lead tree! If the other line is a foot lower keeping equal tension will be nye impossible. 

 

Im certainly non compliant so is everyone I've worked with, some being 30 years served  climbers! 

 

 

I suggest the aa and hse do us a proper demonstration. 

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by mtt.tr

[Paul Poynter]

Hello,

I have been out of the UK for 9 years and working in a country new to rope work.  As the industry develops  we take influence from different countries and codes of practices after all, there is no point reinventing the wheel for no reason.  I found a refreshing feeling being in Japan, no rules meant unlimited creativity but I understand that a minimum standard is very necessary.  As Japan moves into a generic framework where a back up system is a legal requirement for rope work (not tree work specific), I have been watching with interest the goings on in the UK.  

I am of the mind that a copy and paste mindset will never be able to take industrial access modes of practice into trees but also believe there are ways to develop ones rope work skill while aiming for a higher standard of safety.  Wether that is a generic back-up system or a fluid technical palette that can accommodate for changing situations is open for discussion, I favor the latter.  It has been interesting listening to reactions, some knee jerk negative and others open to the new challenge.  Remember, it wasn't so long ago that stationary climbers were seen as spawn of the devil!  And now a growing number of climbers are becoming adept at controlling two devices on independent systems.

I read the updated Industry Code of Practice, wished that there was more technical clarity and advice.

There are lots of avenues to explore, hope that we find a way to do it.

 

All the best

 

Paul