Workable alternative to U.K. two climbing systems

[Jard]

So, it’s here. The best practice has changed much to everyone’s dismay. U.K. arbs as stated by the HSE need to have 2 line attachment while climbing.

 

Its a pain in the arse and more unsafe in my opinion.

 

My question is regarding the use of a fall arrest system such as a DMM Buddy as a second to your main climbing system. It seems to satisfy the criteria. Is it ok? Can anyone shed any light or offer a counter argument on its use?

 

Cheers

[Dbikeguy]

Need to be IRATA or similar trained in rescue technique to deal with falls onto a cammed device.
You need more kit as you have to unweight it to release or disconnect so ascender above, pulley etc
So my initial thought was petzl asap but means doing another course... and your rescue climber doing it, plus more kit in the rescue bag

[scotspine1]

If you want to climb on two ropes by all means do so but climbing on two ropes is not mandatory. You DO NOT need to do it.

 

When you approach a job, if you assess the risk that climbing on two ropes could lead to an increased risk of an accident then you dont do it. This does not mean you fore-go the use of two ropes indefinitely. It just means you understand when it would be beneficial to use two ropes.

 

An increased risk of climbing on two ropes is the unanswered problem of self rescue which the AA will not address because they know it's a huge problem if your two climbing lines become tangled beneath you on a self rescue descent. They are pushing a technique that could potentially see a climber bleed out amidst tangled lines. 

 

The proposed implemetation of two ropes by the HSE (and heavily pushed by the AA)  was initiated as a kneejerk reaction to climbers falling off the end of their climbing lines and cutting themselves out of the tree, in these instances the victims were deviating from industry best practice (no stopper knots in end of lines and not being tied in twice when using the saw).

 

If moving through the crown of a tree on a single rope was such a dangerous practice there would be 1000s of tree climbers dropping out of trees on a weekly basis worldwide. 

 

The proposed two rope implementation fiasco and it's accompanying hysteria will go down as a low point for the AA and the arboricultural industry in general. It showed the HSE have minimal understanding of our industry and that the AA was not willing to robustly defend our position. What made matters worse was that the AA attempted to delegitimise our safe work practices overnight. They deferred to the HSE with little resistance, behaving obsequiously to those in power. 

 

Do not let these people dictate how you manage your safety in the tree, it's your life on the line, not theirs. They sit in their warm offices reading accident stats thinking I need to justify my job and throw some regulations at this industry I know nothing about so I can be seen to be doing something. 

 

How could they possibly have the answers?

 

The Arb industry is a grassroots movement, everything we've done related to climbing was innovated and developed from within from the ground up, borrowing some aspects from similar rope disciplines. It's not a top down bureaucracy. People not actively engaged in this work on a daily basis DO NOT get to dictate how we carry out our work. They can try, but now, with almost zero credibility....who in their right mind would listen to them. 

 

If twin rope ever becomes the norm in treework it'll be because it was innovated and developed from within to make the job easier or safer on our terms. Only we as climbers can fully appreciate the depth of infinite climbing situations and evolving work scenarios that require our mind to be as free as possible to be able to create imaginative solutions to the task at hand. 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

[Khriss]

I did a presentation on 2Rope on weds  ( again ) including cutting and aerial rescue. It went smoothly ( Obvs as a presentation would - wouldn't it ? ) but both climbers and managers pointed out the drawbacks with intelligent eyes. The single line and steel strop for pollarding, good groundstaff managing the loose rope on the ground. It ain't atrocious to work with, but commercial climbing to a price will always have casualties ( climbers rushing - clueless ground staff ) I will say we have had a couple of ranting climbers vocally  dead against it - but most understand that it's part of this contract so next bus stop is their option should they so wish ! K

[Mark Bolam]

I wouldn't have entered into a contract where the client insisted on myself or my lads doing something that could make the job more dangerous in many situations, as discussed.

 

Money isn't everything.

[Rupe]

If you want to climb on two ropes by all means do so but climbing on two ropes is not mandatory. You DO NOT need to do it.
 
When you approach a job, if you assess the risk that climbing on two ropes could lead to an increased risk of an accident then you dont do it. This does not mean you fore-go the use of two ropes indefinitely. It just means you understand when it would be beneficial to use two ropes.
 
An increased risk of climbing on two ropes is the unanswered problem of self rescue which the AA will not address because they know it's a huge problem if your two climbing lines become tangled beneath you on a self rescue descent. They are pushing a technique that could potentially see a climber bleed out amidst tangled lines. 
 
The proposed implemetation of two ropes by the HSE (and heavily pushed by the AA)  was initiated as a kneejerk reaction to climbers falling off the end of their climbing lines and cutting themselves out of the tree, in these instances the victims were deviating from industry best practice (no stopper knots in end of lines and not being tied in twice when using the saw).
 
If moving through the crown of a tree on a single rope was such a dangerous practice there would be 1000s of tree climbers dropping out of trees on a weekly basis worldwide. 
 
The proposed two rope implementation fiasco and it's accompanying hysteria will go down as a low point for the AA and the arboricultural industry in general. It showed the HSE have minimal understanding of our industry and that the AA was not willing to robustly defend our position. What made matters worse was that the AA attempted to delegitimise our safe work practices overnight. They deferred to the HSE with little resistance, behaving obsequiously to those in power. 
 
Do not let these people dictate how you manage your safety in the tree, it's your life on the line, not theirs. They sit in their warm offices reading accident stats thinking I need to justify my job and throw some regulations at this industry I know nothing about so I can be seen to be doing something. 
 
How could they possibly have the answers?
 
The Arb industry is a grassroots movement, everything we've done related to climbing was innovated and developed from within from the ground up, borrowing some aspects from similar rope disciplines. It's not a top down bureaucracy. People not actively engaged in this work on a daily basis DO NOT get to dictate how we carry out our work. They can try, but now, with almost zero credibility....who in their right mind would listen to them. 
 
If twin rope ever becomes the norm in treework it'll be because it was innovated and developed from within to make the job easier or safer on our terms. Only we as climbers can fully appreciate the depth of infinite climbing situations and evolving work scenarios that require our mind to be as free as possible to be able to create imaginative solutions to the task at hand. 
 
 
 
 
 
. 

Now that's a good post!!

[Jard]

4 hours ago, scotspine1 said:

If you want to climb on two ropes by all means do so but climbing on two ropes is not mandatory. You DO NOT need to do it.

 

When you approach a job, if you assess the risk that climbing on two ropes could lead to an increased risk of an accident then you dont do it. This does not mean you fore-go the use of two ropes indefinitely. It just means you understand when it would be beneficial to use two ropes.

 

An increased risk of climbing on two ropes is the unanswered problem of self rescue which the AA will not address because they know it's a huge problem if your two climbing lines become tangled beneath you on a self rescue descent. They are pushing a technique that could potentially see a climber bleed out amidst tangled lines. 

 

The proposed implemetation of two ropes by the HSE (and heavily pushed by the AA)  was initiated as a kneejerk reaction to climbers falling off the end of their climbing lines and cutting themselves out of the tree, in these instances the victims were deviating from industry best practice (no stopper knots in end of lines and not being tied in twice when using the saw).

 

If moving through the crown of a tree on a single rope was such a dangerous practice there would be 1000s of tree climbers dropping out of trees on a weekly basis worldwide. 

 

The proposed two rope implementation fiasco and it's accompanying hysteria will go down as a low point for the AA and the arboricultural industry in general. It showed the HSE have minimal understanding of our industry and that the AA was not willing to robustly defend our position. What made matters worse was that the AA attempted to delegitimise our safe work practices overnight. They deferred to the HSE with little resistance, behaving obsequiously to those in power. 

 

Do not let these people dictate how you manage your safety in the tree, it's your life on the line, not theirs. They sit in their warm offices reading accident stats thinking I need to justify my job and throw some regulations at this industry I know nothing about so I can be seen to be doing something. 

 

How could they possibly have the answers?

 

The Arb industry is a grassroots movement, everything we've done related to climbing was innovated and developed from within from the ground up, borrowing some aspects from similar rope disciplines. It's not a top down bureaucracy. People not actively engaged in this work on a daily basis DO NOT get to dictate how we carry out our work. They can try, but now, with almost zero credibility....who in their right mind would listen to them. 

 

If twin rope ever becomes the norm in treework it'll be because it was innovated and developed from within to make the job easier or safer on our terms. Only we as climbers can fully appreciate the depth of infinite climbing situations and evolving work scenarios that require our mind to be as free as possible to be able to create imaginative solutions to the task at hand. 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

Brilliant response cheers. I agree and couldn’t say it any better.
 

I work for a company of 10 employees that works to the industry best practice and are keen to demonstrate this. 
 

While everyone understands they can risk asses themselves out of 2 lines. I’m looking for a way to practically satisfy the criteria, without cluttering up your bridge too much and not having to tend 2 devices. Potentially the DMM buddy. 

 

All posts have been useful thank you

[Konstantly]

5 hours ago, EdwardC said:

I would suggest if you're able to self-rescue you're able to manage your ropes, ergo, your bleed out argument falls at the first hurdle.

Please expand. Are you implying that in a state of panic from a catastrophic bleed that working out two systems will be easier than a bail out on one?

I agree with many of your points but this one as I read it is incorrect imo.

 

 

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

19 hours ago, EdwardC said:

 

Risk assessment is about reasonableness. It's not about assessing out every last little risk, that's impossible.

 

I've worked in arboriculture for over 40 years, 25 as a climber starting in 1979. I've known two people who fell from height, none who had to be rescued or self-rescue. I would suggest if you're able to self-rescue you're able to manage your ropes, ergo, your bleed out argument falls at the first hurdle. If you couldn't manage your ropes then you're not self-rescuing and someone has to come and get you. And if those who fell because they had no stop-knot, or because they cut themselves out of a tree had had second lines they wouldn't have fallen, which is why the HSE are saying it's two rope working. And it's not being proposed it's right here right now and what you should be doing.

 

What is considered safe, or just normal practice,  changes through time. Back in the late seveties it was fairly normal to free climb the tree before tying in when you got to the top. Would anyone countenance that now. MEWPs were unheard of, but now are common place and used to avoid climbing wherever practical. It used to be the case that you wouldn't use a strop to aid work positioning as it reduced your ability to get out of the way if something bad was happening. Yet now it's considered good practice because it improves stability in the tree and, as you point out, helps prevent chainsaw injuries and deaths, invariably caused by the use of top-handled saws.

 

The Arb Assoc has many faults but you will be pleased to know that they were vocal in defence of top-handled saws when they were to be banned. Personally I'd say defending one of the biggest killers in arboriculture is defending the indefensible. But I never liked or used top-handled saws. I guess those who did like and use them and were killed by them would also take a different view now, as will their families and friends.

 

On a cheerier note, the AA worked hard so that full body harnesses weren't introduced for all tree work. So you can thank them for being able to use whatever sit harness you have.

 

The HSE will look at the figures and conclude that falls from height are the major problem in arb work, and stopping it their primary concern. They won't wait for a few millennia whilst Darwinian evolution takes place, they'll act now. Next up will be the next biggest cause of injuries and deaths. So it's back to the future and the banning of top-handled saws.

 

In 25 years time people will be wondering why two rope working wasn't always the way it was done, and why climbers were allowed to kill themselves on a regular basis with top-handled saws.

Spoken like a true desk jockey.

 

Why do you think your opinion is more valid than that of current working climbers?

 

Single rope working and top handled saws don’t kill people.

Using them incorrectly does.

[Jonny69]

42 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

Spoken like a true desk jockey.

 

Why do you think your opinion is more valid than that of current working climbers?

 

Single rope working and top handled saws don’t kill people.

Using them incorrectly does.

The most concerning part of the post is 25 years as a climber, then going on to say he never used a top handle saw. Must have spent 25 years doing 5 years worth of climbing.

 

I must have really friendly top handle saws, mine have never killed me. Not even once. 

 

People will learn to speed up and kill themselves with whatever tool you give them. Its human nature, we want to race, faster is better and time=money.