Twin Rope Hazard (Self Rescue)

[Mick Dempsey]

2 hours ago, PDizzle said:

So all the nitpicking around legislation aside what is this actually for? Is it so the insurance companies don't have to pay out if you didn't have a second line installed?
Experienced climbers have been climbing for years without incident and as far as I'm aware the best way of preventing falling out the tree is to just not cut your rope. Take your time and think about what you're doing before you do it. If there's a risk to cutting your mainline, rethink and reposition. This twinline nonsense will cause more accidents than it prevents.

/my2cents

What’s it for? To prevent avoidable death and injury.

I reckon lots of experienced climbers fall out of trees, cut their ropes and generally fuck up as frequently as inexperienced ones.

 

 

[scotspine1]

15 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

What’s it for? To prevent avoidable death and injury.

 

Is it applicable in every situation, at all times in the tree? 

 

That's what we're discussing. 

 

We're at risk of loosing the freedom to move around the canopy on one line. 

 

Picture a dense Oak canopy - the interior crowded with secondary branches which the tree needs to sustain the main structural branches - you can't remove them.

 

Now picture working in that tree all day on a crown reduction using two DdRT lines, dragging the trailing ends everywhere you go - they’re constantly get tangled and twisted into each other regardless of your attentive rope management. The groundie constantly entering the dropzone to feed the slack of your two ropes into separate bags, untwisting the ropes the best he can, trying to keep them free of each other - it's impossible, they both go where you go. 

 

You need to rig a branch. The rigged branch gets caught up in the trailing ends of the two lines 20ft below you, it's too heavy for you to lift, it's stuck there, the ground crew can't lower it anymore,  you cant descend to free it - your twin lines are trapped. 

 

The vast majority of climbers today are attached to the tree twice when cutting. 

 

So what is twin rope climbing for? 

 

.

 

 

[Jake Andrews]

So you advocate MRT working where there are two ropes attached to the climber at all times (possibly adding to the complexity of the current system and it’s management) and then you say the current training is inadequate anyway.
 
Your approach seems slightly contradictory.
 
I hope you are not employed in a role that requires you to hand out h+s advice, or write company policy!

I don’t think there is any need to go personal.
I don’t think I am being contradictory.

My stance in a nut shell.
I’m not fully against 2 rope working at all time’s. I can see why this has come in that 2 rope working is mandatory from the accidents that have been reported in the past 3 years alone. I will make 2 ropes work and I will ensure that it is a benefit for me, not a hindrance. I also confident that I won’t get my ropes in a pickle as I am a stickler for good rope management. It will however inevitably slow me down which I wonder if that has the most adversity of it all.

Do I think it will save more accidents from occurring or even less occurring over the same amount of time? No.

I have made it no secret that I feel as though current training methods and assessment criteria are poor and inadequate. If we could make the training about content and quality over pass numbers, that is where I believe less accidents will occur. I believe we have a huge skills shortage in this industry and good, efficient, safe operators are not easy to come by. It takes a great deal of years, nurturing and patience to turn an apprentice into a fully fledged arborist. Some companies can’t keep regular staff for 12 months! So where do these apprentices get there on job training from a competent person? That’s the band of people where I believe most accidents occur.

If we could design a new training scheme that would incorporate the skills needed by an arborist, perhaps wages would increase as would professionalism.

[Bolt]

30 minutes ago, Jake Andrews said:

 

I don’t think there is any need to go personal.

 

 

Hi Jake, Sorry.

 

You are completely correct.  There is no need to get personal, and I apologise if my written comments caused offence or annoyance.

 

Alas, a throwaway and flippant remark that is made in conversation can take on far more significance when written down.

 

Having said that, I actually do hope you are not employed in a role that requires you to hand out h+s advice, or write company policy, but only because both those roles are nowhere near as much fun as clambering around the canopy, cutting the trees that no one else will.

 

 

 

 

[Bolt]

55 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

Now picture working in that tree all day on a crown reduction using two DdRT lines, dragging the trailing ends everywhere you go - they constantly get tangled and twisted into each other regardless of your attentive rope management. The groundie constantly entering the dropzone to feed the slack of your two ropes into separate bags, untwisting the ropes the best he can, trying to keep them free of each other - it's impossible, they both go where you go. 

Hi Scotspine

 

Having carefully read the draft ICOP, I think I have a solution for your DdRT (MRT as the ICOP calls it) conundrum that’s not only keeps me within the scope of current legislation, but also maintains my insurability!

 

Do-ya-wanna-hear-it, ‘eh?

 

Do-ya-wanna?

[Mr. Squirrel]

1 hour ago, Mick Dempsey said:

What’s it for? To prevent avoidable death and injury.

I reckon lots of experienced climbers fall out of trees, cut their ropes and generally fuck up as frequently as inexperienced ones.

 

 

I'd say there are degrees of experienced though... Your climber of ten years who's still climbing on a prussik loop Vs climber of ten years who's bothered to learn a bit about and invest in a modern and efficient climbing system... I know who I'd have more faith in. 

 

Plus, some people I've seen are basically just not cut out for a career where their safety is directly dependant upon their decision making under pressure. The training systems in the UK should be filtering those people out, rather than giving them the go ahead to fall out of trees and fuck themselves and the rest of us over. 

[Bolt]

51 minutes ago, Jake Andrews said:

I have made it no secret that I feel as though current training methods and assessment criteria are poor and inadequate. If we could make the training about content and quality over pass numbers, that is where I believe less accidents will occur. I believe we have a huge skills shortage in this industry and good, efficient, safe operators are not easy to come by. It takes a great deal of years, nurturing and patience to turn an apprentice into a fully fledged arborist. Some companies can’t keep regular staff for 12 months! So where do these apprentices get there on job training from a competent person? That’s the band of people where I believe most accidents occur.

If we could design a new training scheme that would incorporate the skills needed by an arborist, perhaps wages would increase as would professionalism.

I fear the problem is that our industry seems to expect (or be under the impression) that staff with an NPTC ticket are fully trained and competent.

 

Regardless of the quality, length or high benchmark of any training program, you will never get workplace ready, experienced and competent staff.  For them, they need to actually do the job, and that requires training on the job.  Proper training, not box ticking exercises.

 

Unfortunately, If you want proper trained staff, you will only achieve that by the entire industry stepping up and embracing a proper, vocationally assesses apprenticeship scheme.

 

I don’t think the industry is quite ready for that yet.

[Bolt]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

Plus, some people I've seen are basically just not cut out for a career where their safety is directly dependant upon their decision making under pressure. The training systems in the UK should be filtering those people out, rather than giving them the go ahead to fall out of trees and fuck themselves and the rest of us over. 

An assessor doing an NPTC 308 assessment has a couple of hours tops to draw an impression of whether someone is cut out to do aerial chainsaw.

 

What is more, the assessors job is to judge against a published criteria, not to judge the employability of a candidate.

An employer has days / weeks / months to build a relationship with a worker and judge their suitability... surely employers are in a better position to ‘filter people out’ before they fuck themselves and the rest of us over?

 

 

[Jake Andrews]

An assessor doing an NPTC 308 assessment has a couple of hours tops to draw an impression of whether someone is cut out to do aerial chainsaw.   What is more, the assessors job is to judge against a published criteria, not to judge the employability of a candidate.

 

An employer has days / weeks / months to build a relationship with a worker and judge their suitability... surely employers are in a better position to ‘filter people out’ before they fuck themselves and the rest of us over?

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

But employers with large staff turnovers don’t do that. They’re looking for the next member of staff to fulfil the contract they promised.

 

I’m going to leave this here as I believe we are moving away from the topic of the thread.

 

[Khriss]

8 hours ago, Bolt said:

Hi Jake, Sorry.

 

You are completely correct.  There is no need to get personal, and I apologise if my written comments caused offence or annoyance.

 

Alas, a throwaway and flippant remark that is made in conversation can take on far more significance when written down.

 

Having said that, I actually do hope you are not employed in a role that requires you to hand out h+s advice, or write company policy, but only because both those roles are nowhere near as much fun as clambering around the canopy, cutting the trees that no one else will.

 

 

 

 

Exactly Bolt I know this yet I still have to do the recommendations so that  the insurance companies will, god forbid it happening - pay out . Cos I kno what fucking weasels they are fr dodging claims ( an our claims will be expensive ) its a total arse - even with a good climber like yr man Jake - some guys just wont do it or fuk it up tragically . K