Two-rope Working - an update

[Bolt]

1 hour ago, Jamie Jones said:

.... 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Bolt
Not paying attention

[Bolt]

2 hours ago, Pete Mctree said:

 We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation 

 

Seems at bit harsh, especially when you consider it’s been in place since 2005 ( longer than many of the recent dissenters have been climbing).

 

Surely the problem is the recent reinterpretation made by a handful of people attending a climbing demo?

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Bolt
Still not paying attention... I’m off to get something to eat!

[Pete Mctree]

8 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 

Seems at bit harsh, especially when you consider it’s been in place since 1998 ( longer than many of the recent dissenters have been climbing).

 

Surely the problem is the recent reinterpretation made by a handful of people attending a climbing demo?

 

 

I agree, I meant that it was not very applicable for our unique industry. I sometimes struggle to write with the clarity I desire 

[Bolt]

35 minutes ago, Pete Mctree said:

I agree, I meant that it was not very applicable for our unique industry. I sometimes struggle to write with the clarity I desire 

Indeed.

 

WaH* has sat happily in our industry for [over a] decade.  It is a pity that a few in positions of ‘authority’ have seen fit to reinterpret it.

 

All of this is a result of a very few individuals.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Bolt
Tied myself up in legislation.

[Jake Andrews]

Indeed.
 
LOLER has sat happily in our industry for decades.  It is a pity that a few in positions of ‘authority’ have seen fit to reinterpret it.
 
All of this is a result of a very few individuals.

This isn’t about LOLER 1998. It’s about working at height regs 2005, nothing to do with LOLER.

[Bolt]

6 minutes ago, Jake Andrews said:

 

This isn’t about LOLER 1998. It’s about working at height regs 2005, nothing to do with LOLER.

 

My mistake......

 

as you were!

 

?

[Paul alexander]

First post. Bear with me. A couple of questions and a couple of observations.

Is the reason for having two lines, to do with inability to select a sufficiently strong anchor, or to have a back up in case one gets severed? 

If the former, what are the implications for rigging? Do we know what is safe to rig off, but not know what is safe to prevent us falling and suffering a life changing injury or worse?

Work positioning covers the cutting ropes scenario...you could also call it evolution!

The scenario of being on two ropes, suffering a bad cut and having to bail out quickly has been mentioned elsewhere. One handed is possible. Two ropes? Nah! Ain't gonna happen.  Heaven forbid the next fatility is a bleed out because someone was trying to do the right thing, but due to the limitations put on them by the suits, was unable to save themself. That will be an interesting court case nobody wants to see. Especially for the HSE people who are responsible  for insisting we comply.

At the end of the day, I do my pre-start site specific risk assessment, and I'm afraid, that is a consideration, in the section about rescue. How could anyone send another climber into a tree if that scenario is a possibility?

On large trees, we sometimes put a rescue line in ready to go, should we need it. Do we now need 2? I'm not clear on that. It's also apparently ok to rescue on 1 rope? Hold up, we can't be trusted to select a decent anchor for one person to work off, but we can put the weight of 2 people on one? Man alive. Anyone would think they don't want us to climb trees. ? Rant over...

 

[Paul alexander]

Me again. At the beginning of 2019, we put 5 climbers through refresher training at our nearest training provider. Not cheap, but you feel worthwhile. Seems like it was a waste of money. Not only have the frontline climbers had 14 years to comply, but so have the training providers. If anything, they should have been the ones banging it home. Not a whisper on our refresher. All over the country, letters are dropping onto doormats, telling us we are probably falling short of the requirements and should book ANOTHER training course with the same provider of course. Will there be any discounts for climbers who have attended refresher training in good faith, and not been sufficiently updated by training providers? They should have shouldn't they? Just out of interest, before this raised it's head recently, has anyone been on a refresher training course, where 2 rope has been insisted upon?

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Paul alexander

[Jake Andrews]

The last refresher training I went on for aerial rescue, I wasn’t allowed to use SRT. I felt as though the instructor had no experience with the use of SRT and so didn’t want me to use it as he couldn’t recommend a rescue scenario or advice. Completely useless for me as I climb SRT around 80% of the time and was the only one at the time so my team mates also didn’t know how to rescue. We have since done our own training and come up with our own rescue protocols and now more people are using it SRT in the company.

My gut feeling tells me that a majority of instructors may be a little out of date with current methods and practices. Oh, and don’t hold out for your money back.

[MattyF]

I was again thinking about this so will add another 2ps worth (probs on about £50 by now )....in 25 years I’ve not had a single accident ,I would put this down too A ,good training and B, good apprenticeship.
Now I can think of so many examples of if I had two lines in the tree I would not of lasted 25 years I would be serious dead or injured by now due to failing trees and material not going where planned due to weather or just bad judgment..
A tree work is not comparable or in a bracket you can compare to the normal working with rope regulations, there is too much debris being removed too many variables that changes the game and makes working with two ropes dangerous or a hindrance unless it’s needed , I can see things going wrong very quickly for inexperienced climbers and experienced for that matter with branches and tree tops dragging lines and loading them maybe with dire consequences.