Workable alternative to U.K. two climbing systems

[Mark Bolam]

1 hour ago, The avantgardener said:

If full time professional climbers here in the U.K. where anywhere near as good/safe as they think they are, we wouldn’t be in this two rope situation in the first place.

You’re talking shite.

1 week course £80/day teenagers working for the big commercial ‘arb’ companies are no one’s idea of full time professional climbers, and they are the ones generally falling out of trees because they haven’t got the experience to tell the difference between anchor and epicormic.

[Mesterh]

1 hour ago, The avantgardener said:

If full time professional climbers here in the U.K. where anywhere near as good/safe as they think they are, we wouldn’t be in this two rope situation in the first place.

Unfortunately you can be a full time professional climber on Friday while on the previous Monday your feet had never left the ground.

I think you will find that the vast majority of seasoned real pro climbers are against the two rope system, that's all that matters and they are the only valid opinions.

 

Killer top handle saws.

FFS

 

[The avantgardener]

47 minutes ago, josharb87 said:

Bullsh#t.

 

That would mean each year, 143, 000 arbs are admitted to one of the UK's type 1 Emergency departments. Nearly 1% of all A&E patients! 

 

My sis works in A&E and has never mentioned seeing an arb. 

 

Plenty of gardeners though.....

I didn’t state that all A&E departments in the U.K. have this amount of injured Arb guys, just this one in Burgess Hill.

I have no reason to disbelieve the nurse who dealt with this guy either.

[Stubby]

Its well known that arbs in Burgess Hill are clumsy fuckers ...

[The avantgardener]

11 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

You’re talking shite.

1 week course £80/day teenagers working for the big commercial ‘arb’ companies are no one’s idea of full time professional climbers, and they are the ones generally falling out of trees because they haven’t got the experience to tell the difference between anchor and epicormic.

I agree that inexperienced cutters are more likely to fall and get injured at work. Unfortunately the HSE are reacting to the numbers of injuries per year and not how experienced the injured person was.

[Konstantly]

33 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

What is the difference between modern and old climbing methods.

 

A lot when it comes to ropes and the hardware to get you up and down the tree. All the modern systems make ascending in particular so much easier, and that's a good thing.

 

But, essentially whether it's a modern set up, or a thirty year old set up there's no difference. You have a rope you use to get yourself up and down the tree. If you descended off your rope 30 years ago you fell from height. If you descend off your rope with your modern system you fall from height. If you cut yourself out of a tree with your 30 year-old set up or your modern system you fall from height. So the argument that because it is some years since I climbed for a living makes my comments irrelevant just doesn't make sense. The systems may be different but the outcomes of failure are the same. And had there been a second line you would of reduced the risk substantially.

 

Those who have died from chainsaw injuries and those who have fallen from height recently appear to have been qualified. I'm sure they thought it wouldn't happen to them, but it did. They didn't go to work thinking they would do something to kill or injure themselves that day, but they did. And the fact that it did is all that matters to the HSE. The HSE won't take account of the climbers belief in their invulnerability, that they know it all, their contempt for the risks bred by familiarity, or the belief that it won't happen to them. They'll ask how could the accident have been avoided.

 

Some degree of risk is acceptable, because there's always going to be some residual risk no matter what you do. But there has to be a balance between the risk and the benefits, hence societies acceptance of the risk posed by driving. But it is considered society will not accept the risk posed to workers where there is a risk to life greater than 1 death in 10,000 workers per annum. Arb is dangerous, but reducing the risk is easy when you look at the main causes of deaths and injuries, falls from height and top handled chainsaws.

 

At the end of the day, you can continue to use one rope. You may get stopped by HSE inspectors but that's probably unlikely. And you probably won't ask yourself if what you're doing could have been better done with two ropes, that is until you're on the floor having fallen from height.

 

One of those I knew who fell landed on those spikey metal railings. Bet they wished they'd used two ropes.

More investigation and transparency into the cause of accidents would be a start as to the true cause of the tragic events that lead to life changing injuries and death. 

 

The fact that a complete novice can ascertain all the qualifications needed to be acrededted as a qualified climber in a matter of months is quite frankly shocking..

 

Our industry needs to change tact and that is unequivocal. I would argue that the majority of the statistics involved are the result of poor work positioning and poor practice.

 

Throwing two working systems into the mix is the wrong approach.

 

Concentration on good work practices is key with mentorship from skilled observant operatives.

The "it will be ok" and wing it attitude has to change.

If we wish to be treated as professionals then we need to step up and act as them.

 

I have made my opinions on this in past posts in other threads so will not repeat on this one.

 

What circumstances led to the person who fell on spiky railings? 

[Konstantly]

18 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

I agree that inexperienced cutters are more likely to fall and get injured at work. Unfortunately the HSE are reacting to the numbers of injuries per year and not how experienced the injured person was.

Maybe they should. The implications on this obviously is having an effect on all involved.

[The avantgardener]

25 minutes ago, Konstantly said:

Our industry needs to change tact and that is unequivocal

But that’s the whole point, it isn’t changing, too many injuries are happening and the HSE have stepped in to make the changes.

[josharb87]

38 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

I didn’t state that all A&E departments in the U.K. have this amount of injured Arb guys, just this one in Burgess Hill.

I have no reason to disbelieve the nurse who dealt with this guy either.

And i didn't take into account the type 2 and 3 A&E departments, or the time the nurse isn't working. Perhaps there's some misunderstanding there, could it have been that she sees 10-15 serious lacerations per week (not Arb specific)? That sounds more realistic.

[Mesterh]

1 hour ago, EdwardC said:

What is the difference between modern and old climbing methods.

 

A lot when it comes to ropes and the hardware to get you up and down the tree. All the modern systems make ascending in particular so much easier, and that's a good thing.

 

But, essentially whether it's a modern set up, or a thirty year old set up there's no difference. You have a rope you use to get yourself up and down the tree. If you descended off your rope 30 years ago you fell from height. If you descend off your rope with your modern system you fall from height. If you cut yourself out of a tree with your 30 year-old set up or your modern system you fall from height. So the argument that because it is some years since I climbed for a living makes my comments irrelevant just doesn't make sense. The systems may be different but the outcomes of failure are the same. And had there been a second line you would of reduced the risk substantially.

 

Those who have died from chainsaw injuries and those who have fallen from height recently appear to have been qualified. I'm sure they thought it wouldn't happen to them, but it did. They didn't go to work thinking they would do something to kill or injure themselves that day, but they did. And the fact that it did is all that matters to the HSE. The HSE won't take account of the climbers belief in their invulnerability, that they know it all, their contempt for the risks bred by familiarity, or the belief that it won't happen to them. They'll ask how could the accident have been avoided.

 

Some degree of risk is acceptable, because there's always going to be some residual risk no matter what you do. But there has to be a balance between the risk and the benefits, hence societies acceptance of the risk posed by driving. But it is considered society will not accept the risk posed to workers where there is a risk to life greater than 1 death in 10,000 workers per annum. Arb is dangerous, but reducing the risk is easy when you look at the main causes of deaths and injuries, falls from height and top handled chainsaws.

 

At the end of the day, you can continue to use one rope. You may get stopped by HSE inspectors but that's probably unlikely. And you probably won't ask yourself if what you're doing could have been better done with two ropes, that is until you're on the floor having fallen from height.

 

One of those I knew who fell landed on those spikey metal railings. Bet they wished they'd used two ropes.

Maybe they wished they had used  a mewp, used a scaffold tower or just didn't do whatever the silly thing they did to cause the accident in the first place.

 

Simply throwing a second rope into the mix won't help these people at all, it will just cause more problems and will probably result in more accidents and fatalities.