Two-rope Working - an update

[MattyF]

1 minute ago, Craig Johnson said:

No, broadley speaking other industries have one working system and a backup system that only come into play on the failure of the primary. these systems are designed to work on near/vertical ropes in 2D. they do not use two primary systems or work in 3D........generally and the whole thing falls down around anchor points

The whole 2 dimensional vs the tree being 3 dimensional is the most important aspect of why this is BS! 

[Jake Andrews]

The whole 2 dimensional vs the tree being 3 dimensional is the most important aspect of why this is BS! 

But are you thinking of using a backup system solely? That is 2D thinking.
Add a second system and it becomes a 3D system. 2 bridges, 2 swivels and you can move in a 3D fashion.

[TIMON]

But are you thinking of using a backup system solely? That is 2D thinking.
Add a second system and it becomes a 3D system. 2 bridges, 2 swivels and you can move in a 3D fashion.

This is true in a wide open canopy, but....the whole thing becomes a complete nightmare in a denser canopy.
Unreasonably impractical, which can be reflected in a risk assessment, my question would be (Paul if you’re reading) how defensible is it to reject 2 ropes in a dense canopy.
My fear is that unless you are always tied into two anchors, you won’t be Insured and you will always be liable, should anything go wrong.

[MattyF]

But are you thinking of using a backup system solely? That is 2D thinking.
Add a second system and it becomes a 3D system. 2 bridges, 2 swivels and you can move in a 3D fashion.

Not easily through a tree crown you can’t.

[Gray git]

@AA Teccie (Paul)
So next year will all the climbing comps have to be run on twin systems to comply with this?

No answer to that one then....
Also thought will the pole climbing have to be on double belays needing twice the ground crew to run the comps.

[htb]

Forgive me for being stupid. If both your ropes need independent anchors, if you've stripped a single stemed conifer such as a spruce for arguments sake, topped it and then start sectioning down. Both your lines are attached to separate bridges of an approved harness what defines an independent anchor in this case as both your lines will be round the stem and be all of 1-2" apart vertically, that's hardly independent.

[Pete Mctree]

1 hour ago, htb said:

Forgive me for being stupid. If both your ropes need independent anchors, if you've stripped a single stemed conifer such as a spruce for arguments sake, topped it and then start sectioning down. Both your lines are attached to separate bridges of an approved harness what defines an independent anchor in this case as both your lines will be round the stem and be all of 1-2" apart vertically, that's hardly independent.

We are just going to mention all valid points like this when the ICOP comes up for review & see what they suggest. We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation 

[Jamie Jones]

12 minutes ago, Pete Mctree said:

We are just going to mention all valid points like this when the ICOP comes up for review & see what they suggest. We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation 

We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation .... If that is the case then the H&S aspect has failed and the whole aspect of what the ICOP contains need to have a consultation period. To throw up the issues raised and for it to be adjusted. Because of an accident happens as a result of the ICOP then the AA will be liable....

[Pete Mctree]

The draft ICOP will be out for peer review soon I think. Then we can have our say on it & any issues can be highlighted ?

[Dan]

I wonder if the people who wrote the old guide lines will be held liable for all the climbing accidents since 2005?