Single rope climbing UK and the HSE

[MattyF]

Matty, please don't put yourself at risk by employing techniques that are unfamiliar to you or, in your opinion, make the job less safe which may include the use of 2 ropes where considered inappropriate.

However, use of a 'back-up line/system', with some exceptions / omissions on short duration works/activities, e.g. changeovers, (to be agreed), will be the 'new' norm including on access...depending how long it takes you to get up there [emoji6]

The W@H Reg Schedule 5 (1) section, which includes a requirement for use of a 'back-up line/system', is what HSE will measure against going forward and hence that is the challenge for us as an industry, collectively, but need not be the "2 ropes (to ground) + 2 anchors" we previously thought...although this could be an option.

Sorry, just repeating myself now [emoji32].

Ah wey Paul I was just getting in the practice of it became compulsory, I’m aware and used two ropes or three when needed but i needed to spend spend a few weeks solid doing it my self with every task on two ropes and anchors to see if it really was as shite as I imagined it would be.

So basically the outcome is every one and myself included got hysterical about it and nothing has changed , I mean most if not all of us climb on long strops for some traversing and all saw positioning and use back up lines for aerial rescue so effectively nothing has changed at all ?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

“Effectively nothing has changed” = not quite but the change (assumes a backup line/system will be in place most of the time, n more so than currently) isn’t as profound as big as previously assumed. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Tbh Matty ‘et al’ we need the redrafted TG1 to better understand what “the practice” will/may look like.

Hence “watch this space “ as you will be consulted.

Thanks

Paul

[TIMON]

Tbh Matty ‘et al’ we need the redrafted TG1 to better understand what “the practice” will/may look like.
Hence “watch this space “ as you will be consulted.
Thanks
Paul

Hi Paul,
Hope you’re well.

So if I understand it correctly...

1. The ICOP draft for consultation was for people who run teams and plan work to have a say.

2. The new Technical Guide will be drafted initially for consultation (from climbers themselves). (?)

The bottom line being that if a climber takes a fall for whatever reason while only using a ‘one rope’ system. He’ll be uninsured and his employer will be liable and most likely prosecuted. (!)

Thanks

[Tom D]

We're just in the process of updating our RA to accommodate the changes. One thing is clear, as an employer I will not tell a climber whether he should use one or two lines in any given situation. Climbers have different styles and choose different equipment, it would be quite wrong for someone on the ground to tell an experienced climber how to perform a particular task. With trainees it would be different. Our new RA will allow for each climber to risk assess each tree he will climb and to justify why he is using one rope, if that's what he choses to do. He will sign the document and that will be that, his decision.   I'd loose too much sleep if I had the task of telling climbers how they should climb, imagine if something happened, I could be sued because I placed him in a more dangerous position. 

There will be caveats to this of course, but that will be the basic principle of our policy.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

15 minutes ago, TIMON said:

 

Hi Paul,
Hope you’re well.

So if I understand it correctly...

1. The ICOP draft for consultation was for people who run teams and plan work to have a say.

2. The new Technical Guide will be drafted initially for consultation (from climbers themselves). (?)

The bottom line being that if a climber takes a fall for whatever reason while only using a ‘one rope’ system. He’ll be uninsured and his employer will be liable and most likely prosecuted. (!)

Thanks

 

 

Hi Timon, I’m okay thanks, hope you’re well too.

1&2 = yes, essentially.

In response to your last para, whilst questions will inevitably be asked if only one rope is employed, and presuming a backup line/system wasn’t employed either, hence the fall, it probably depends on training received and directives issued by the employer as to whether they too would be deemed liable. I really can’t comment effectively on a hypothetical issue but I do acknowledge it’s a tricky time to be an employer in the absence of specific guidance, ie TG1.

sorry bit of a woolly response here

paul 

[TIMON]

Hi Timon, I’m okay thanks, hope you’re well too.
1&2 = yes, essentially.
In response to your last para, whilst questions will inevitably be asked if only one rope is employed, and presuming a backup line/system wasn’t employed either, hence the fall, it probably depends on training received and directives issued by the employer as to whether they too would be deemed liable. I really can’t comment effectively on a hypothetical issue but I do acknowledge it’s a tricky time to be an employer in the absence of specific guidance, ie TG1.
sorry bit of a woolly response here [emoji32]
paul 

Thanks Paul. Appreciate the reply. [emoji106]

[Khriss]

Yr absolutely right @MattyF  and I would hate to climb this system ( am unicender SRT n side strop man ) however as I have had to make clear to ours, it's getting insurance cover and avoiding prosecution on incident. That's the final factor   . K

[Rough Hewn]

Forgive my naivety,
But from my limited understanding...
All previous climbing training is invalid?
As a non climbing employer of climbers, how do I know if I'm legal and insured?
Seems like this legislation is probably going to injure a lot of climbers?

[Pete Mctree]

17 minutes ago, Rough Hewn said:

Forgive my naivety,
But from my limited understanding...
All previous climbing training is invalid?
As a non climbing employer of climbers, how do I know if I'm legal and insured?
Seems like this legislation is probably going to injure a lot of climbers?
 

Nothing so far has invalidated previous training as current methods are being recommended in tandem.