Workable alternative to U.K. two climbing systems

[scotspine1]

9 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Respectfully, this is simply not correct.

 

The AA, or more specifically my colleague Simon Richmond (as project lead), the ICOP authors and others have worked tirelessly to represent and defend the industry current practice with the HSE, who, in turn,  have been very, very robust in defense of their position and approach...and "the battle" continues, albeit more of frank exchange these days.

 

I would hasten you to try to speak with Stuart Parry at HSE and ask him if the AA deferred to the HSE with little resistance, behaving obsequiously to those in power. 

 

With hindsight, it is unfortunate that we perpetuated the issue being titled "use of 2 ropes" which was initiated by HSE but which we now refer to a "climbing with a back-up" (which may include 2 ropes in some situations where appropriate.)

 

PLEASE await production of the revised draft Technical Guide 1 - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue ('TG1') hopefully to be released for industry consultation by end of April.

 

Thanks for reading and stay safe out there.

Paul

 

 

With respect, the AA have no particular relevance from the moment you first meet a customer to that of when they write you a cheque and you say goodbye. 

 

 

. 

 

 

[WesD]

57 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

If you cut through one rope it's very unlikely you'll keep cutting through the other, or whatever you are using for a supplementary anchor. If you cut out one anchor it's very unlikely you're going to then go and cut the other one out. If you descend off one rope is it likely you will carry on until you descend off the other, no.

Both ropes are on one harness and on most bread and butter trees both anchors will be close so due to angles the ropes will not be far off side to side near your body and as such if you are cutting chest height or lower if you hit one with a sharp saw you’ll hit both. 
 

Good practice negates that but I suppose you could argue most accidents stem from poor practice. 

[Konstantly]

9 hours ago, EdwardC said:

As I said earlier it's about being reasonable, not about 'what if'. Do you risk assess the most dangerous thing you do at work, probably not.

 

If you cut through one rope it's very unlikely you'll keep cutting through the other, or whatever you are using for a supplementary anchor. If you cut out one anchor it's very unlikely you're going to then go and cut the other one out. If you descend off one rope is it likely you will carry on until you descend off the other, no.

 

The main chainsaw injuries are neck area and forearms. If you cut your neck you are going to need rescuing. If you cut your forearm and apply pressure to the cut with your other arm, which arm are you going to use to descend. If you need to unclip one rope before self-rescuing, then unclip one rope. One rope has been accepted for rescue purposes.

 

What if you were hit on the head by a meteor, unlikely but it could happen. I doubt anyone in their right mind would expect that you risk assess that.

 

Back to the most dangerous thing you do at work, drive to and from site. Have you risk assessed that, you might be expected to.

Undoubtedly the most dangerous thing is the drive especially when most arb's drive back knowingly overloaded.

 

But that's not the point of this thread.

Nor is cuts from saws because of poor working practices.

 

Failing from hight because of poor anchor point selection leading to failure is what 1st prompted this whole issue from my understanding.

 

 

[patrickosborne]

Both ropes are on one harness and on most bread and butter trees both anchors will be close so due to angles the ropes will not be far off side to side near your body and as such if you are cutting chest height or lower if you hit one with a sharp saw you’ll hit both. 
 
Good practice negates that but I suppose you could argue most accidents stem from poor practice. 

What gets me in all of this is an average 3 man team like ours has three climbing kits ,and one rescue kit . If you add three extra ropes and three more climbing set ups etc . Financially that’s already hurt , then loler checks for the new kit , then replacement costs then extra time to do each tree with the new system ......it’s actually far more viable / safe / cost effective for us all to close the company and go window cleaning in the south east!

BUT WE DONT WANT TO DO THAT AS WE LOVE THE JOB .

Good small units will be priced out of this industry If we follow every piece of legislation.

( I’ve been climbing since 1998) and find that most accidents happen on the ground)

[The avantgardener]

56 minutes ago, patrickosborne said:

( I’ve been climbing since 1998) and find that most accidents happen on the ground)

If you have data for this claim send it to HSE. Unfortunately they will probably use it to push more legislation at another glaringly obvious issue in that the bulk of tree surgeons I know regularly fell large stems after a dismantle without more than CS31.

[Khriss]

My best guess is there are abt 5000 to 7000 climbing Arbs in UK, which if there are 5 or 6 deaths per year, on HSE 1:1000 deaths from a work practise will invite a stop to that practise.

 

The construction industry has millions working , so 5 or 6 deaths hardly gets noticed - like farming. We flag up hugely because of this. I can throw a stone down the street and hit 5 or 6 stupid people. But them the rules sadly.  K

[Konstantly]

An industry that appeals to a lot of young guns. Once 18 can potentially get fast tracked through all tickets suggested to make the company's they work for "compliment" then sent out by some unscrupulous sorts and asked to perform works of a "competent" operative. 

 

Dose this occur in other work at hight rope access sectors?

I venture not.. 

Maybe high rise window cleaning for some of those young folk whist working on another trade to become compitent in that before progression to the next level.

By which time they have learnt the ropes and may have even ascertained a level 2 or 3 in those disciplines. 

They may have never used tools that can cut their ropes let alone subjected themselves to dynamic loading scenarios well into level 2. 

Maybe they do use angle grinders early in their career development. Under the supervision of a level 3 who has to be airborne too.

 

The ropes and the tools are not the issue hear. It's the training and qualification scheme that should be revised. Throwing another rope into the mix will not solve it.

If we wish to be seen as professionals then maybe we should have a system that creates professionals. 

 

Our job can be dangerous if we take into account the unknown quantities of trees and their defects. Then the weather to some degree.

Poor anchor point selection is potentially a lack of understanding and knowledge of what you are dealing with.

Sub standard work positioning is possibly due to rushing to get it done asap or just laziness. Which can lead to cutting of rope or self. 

 

I believe that the majority of the issues can be reduced dramatically via good leadership/mentorship.

This should include a change in the wing it it will be ok attitude.

If we make our work environment a place where you are not commended for taking short cuts and making uncalculated decisions but instead looked upon as the idiot you are then this will snowball into a safer working environment for all.

 

Ground staff need to be more professional too..

Now that's most definitely way off topic so perhaps a different thread..

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

16 hours ago, Konstantly said:

I believe that the majority of the issues can be reduced dramatically via good leadership/mentorship.

This should include a change in the wing it it will be ok attitude.

If we make our work environment a place where you are not commended for taking short cuts and making uncalculated decisions but instead looked upon as the idiot you are then this will snowball into a safer working environment for all.

This approach, and viewing the 'tickets' (chainsaw/climbing quals etc.) as a "licence to practice" NOT the end product, is what will change/improve industry safety and quality performance....and/or maintaining such for those many "professional" and competent / proficient businesses and operators out there already.

As an industry, circumstantially, we have perhaps become too reliant on tickets as evidence of competence but that is just the beginning of the journey..

Cheers all, 

Paul

[Konstantly]

1 minute ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

This approach, and viewing the 'tickets' (chainsaw/climbing quals etc.) as a "licence to practice" NOT the end product, is what will change/improve industry safety and quality performance....and/or maintaining such for those many "professional" and competent / proficient businesses and operators out there already.

As an industry, circumstantially, we have perhaps become too reliant on tickets as evidence of competence but that is just the beginning of the journey..

Cheers all, 

Paul

I agree. An attitude change is needed.

Compliment dose not = competent.

 

Keep up the work Paul.

 

Cheers 

[Konstantly]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

If everyone had been more professional it might be a different story now.

Most definitely.