Two Rope Working Consultation

[Konstantly]

4 hours ago, Khriss said:

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

Would be more than happy to travel to demo the benefits of SRWP on your next demo day (if the price is right ?) 

 

Seriously though..

 

Sounds as if you are making great headway in making your voice heard to those that may not have as great an understanding of day to day issues within the treeworker rope technician scenarios.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Konstantly

[Khriss]

51 minutes ago, Konstantly said:

Would be more than happy to travel to demo the benefits of SRWP on your next demo day (if the price is right ?) 

 

Seriously though..

 

Sounds as if you are making great headway in making your voice heard to those that may not have as great an understanding of day to day issues within the treeworker rope technician scenarios.

Mate, yr always welcome , boss is lavish with the buns, rolls n coffee- but that's it. I too bloody busy to get some proper climbing in , inspite of being near two massive ancient woodlands  ? but we certainly are looking at the consequences of this ill planned scheme. K

[Fleetwood]

The HSE document that that  was quoted in the recent HSE justification for two rope working refered to the unacceptably high accident rate for tree work but the text akso highlighted the unreliable nature of the RIDDOR accident stats as RIDDOR stats lumped ar b accidents in with others and so they seatched for certain keywords to extract what might (or might not be) arb specific accident stats from the RIDDOR dataset. At thd samd time they claim arb accideng numbers are too high to justify imposing additional controls (2 ropes)  I would like to see reliable accident stats for the arb industry to be collected and required if additional (2 ropes) controls are to be imposed.  

 

However I can see the good sense of two systems if it can be shown that one rooe system is resulting in an unacceptable accident rate.  Please can we see reliable accident statistics for the professional arb indusry where one system had failed and a second rope would have prevented the accident (and would not have caused other accidents)  

 

This sort of change should be based on reliable accident statistics specific to the professional arboricultural climbers, and not on questionable data.

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

I tried two ropes in a tree today. I wanted/needed them for a part of it as it was a very broad crown with no middle, it seemed safer. However I continued using them afterwards to see how it was.

I never thought about it, but using two systems obviously means you can't climb with 'one hand for the tree' (something I never really appreciated the significance of) as you're constantly needing to mind both systems. So when going out on a branch you can't just walk out while tending your knot and holding on to this for support. I guess you can be constantly lanyarding in just to give your climbing system some slack, or you find yourself trying to balance and stay still while tending knots. This of course increases the risk of uncontrolled swings though.

Also as I mentioned in a previous post I had concerns about self rescue capabilities. I also tried this, both tails diverted over a large branch with no obstructions. I couldn't move an inch. Even releasing one and then the other, it simply wasn't possible without pulling through the tail first. The reality of rescues is really rather bleak in my opinion. I know very few climbers who I believe could actually get up and out to an injured climber in time to save them in the event of a chainsaw wound etc. So anything that impedes self rescue is a serious hazard in my mind.

I had my access line in, a backup to this would've been impossible, and a rigging line. I found that having that much rope in the tree was more complicated and confusing. 

 

All in, from this brief trial, I found using two systems potentially more hazardous as it impedes smooth climbing. There is also, in my mind, a greater risk of injury while rigging due to the number of types in the tree. And then in the event of an accident self rescue will be extremely challenging.

 

I think there's enough material there to justify a tick box on my risk assessment along the lines of '2nd system too dangerous'. I'm not about to start compromising my own safety at work because someone with no concept of the practical implications said I should. This is utterly ridiculous and a disservice to the industry.

 

Edit: For clarity sake regarding my self rescue scenario and crown movement issues I climb on velocity with HRC in a hitch climber setup. I've spent years dialling my system in and it's extremely smooth and we'll tending without being insecure. I can't conceivably alter this to be any slicker without reducing it's functionality. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Mr. Squirrel

[Konstantly]

Just putting it out their. When I go for work positions (even SRWP) in some instances I use my free hand (afforded by the use of one knot system) to stabilise myself and pull myself to an optimal position. This is also a technique used in IRATA when moving across spans of 1.3m and further in level 1 into level 2. I'm not clear on how this will be implemented when having to manage two systems?

 I may have misunderstood IRATA and not quoted sufficiently. Please feel free to correct me. 

[Dbikeguy]

Forgive me as i’m newly qualified (did my CS38 6wks ago)
Wouldn’t we be using something like a petzl Asap for the 2nd system not a friction hitch /ZZ etc?

They self tend up and down until a heavy load locks them off. so self rescue could be done?
For aerial rescue going up on one line and using their climb line (remove their backup once on your system?) as the 2nd if not damaged would keep you on 2 systems?
If i’m on 2 climbing systems and need to self rescue one handed just cut the 2nd (backup) or unclip if possible? Touch with a silky and it’s gone.

[TIMON]

Forgive me as i’m newly qualified (did my CS38 6wks ago)
Wouldn’t we be using something like a petzl Asap for the 2nd system not a friction hitch /ZZ etc?

They self tend up and down until a heavy load locks them off. so self rescue could be done?
For aerial rescue going up on one line and using their climb line (remove their backup once on your system?) as the 2nd if not damaged would keep you on 2 systems?
If i’m on 2 climbing systems and need to self rescue one handed just cut the 2nd (backup) or unclip if possible? Touch with a silky and it’s gone.

In the case of a hand injury, where the injured hand couldn’t be used, it would be very difficult to cut a rope one handed with a silky unless it was under tension.
Introducing scenarios where the necessity to cut ropes in a self rescue becomes more common (due to the hindrance of an extra system) can’t be a good thing. The risk of an already injured climber having a serious fall would increase.

[Khriss]

We did a rescue demo fr Rail managers- TwoRope was considered a farce in rescue situation- either conscious or unconscious casualty. My response was - make sure yr descent access is clear n cut rest of rope systems loose. Non of the demo climbers or managers could see an advantage of TwoRope over both-ends single rope use. K

[Konstantly]

As comments previously outlined, putting climbers into a scenario where cutting a secondary life line is thought off will be a huge HSE issue for a person who is already in a state of shock and confusion, especially if that person is thinking of self rescue.

Use of Asap looks great on paper. In reality?? 

If this set of regulations is actually being seriously considered and to be implemented then HSE have to make the reasons more accessible to us all. 

We need to see justified reasonable response to our concerns from the powers that see fit to have our best concerns in their hands. 

Having a voice is pointless if it is not heard or responded to. The points made by many on this and other forums are valid and should be treated as so. 

 

 

[Rich Rule]

Valid?  Very valid indeed!

 

However, I fear that you are talking to a brick wall.  I would gladly eat my hat if the HSE actually responded to any of this.

 

Supposedly, they have visibility of this thread and are taking note...  where is their response then?

 

The only time I have had direct contact with the HSE was at an accident scene.  I was asked to make the tree safe after the casualty had been airlifted to hospital.  

3 guys in suits and about 4 police officers had secured the site and the 3 HSE experts were asking me some of the simplest questions regarding tree work.  

 

I responded that that they were supposed to be the experts...

 

I ended up having to write a risk assessment and MS for climbing a ladder, installing a anchor point and finishing a cut.  

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

I would love to see an actual response, (for or against the new ruling) but I very much doubt it.