Calling all Camp Gyro users

[Ian Leach]

I always thought it was hse guidelines not law.

[Mark Bolam]

Paddy is getting too much stick for simply pointing out the HSE position.

 

The reason the rest of us get so riled up about it is that it has very obviously been thought up by desk jockeys who have no comprehension of what climbing trees to make money is all about.

 

I think we should get back on track to discussing the Gyro.

 

I can’t really add anything because I won’t be using one, as Rich said I tried bridge swivels years ago and they seemed to twist things up more, not less.

Not saying the Gyro will, like.

[Paddy1000111]

8 minutes ago, Ian Leach said:

I always thought it was hse guidelines not law.

It comes under Work at Height Regulations 2005 which are law. HSE also do guidelines which like you say, aren't legally binding. 

 

Thanks Mick and Mark, like I said, I'm not here to set rules and tell people what to do. I just pointed out what HSE's standpoint is and my only aim with this thread was to make life easier for those stuck with their decisions, however crappy, inconvenient and un-thought out they are! 

[mtt.tr]

I think we will need a go fund me poor paddys keyboard is taking a hammering. 

 

 

 

Im not outright against it or for it, its certainly job specific i wouldn't abseil irata without a backup 

But then i wouldn't cut without a second tie in may that be a lanyard, like how we've been working for years 

 

I can conceed why people get pissed with you paddy alot of the chaps having be cutting for a long long time and certainly know their stuff arguably we don't know your time frame in the job and it sure as shit isnt the same as aerospace

[Paddy1000111]

Just now, mtt.tr said:

I can conceed why people get pissed with you paddy alot of the chaps having be cutting for a long long time and certainly know their stuff arguably we don't know your time frame in the job and it sure as shit isnt the same as aerospace

I can see why people get pissed too. I don't have a lot of time on the arb front but my entire time in aviation was spent using aerial access equipment, fall restraint gear and work positioning kit. All of those come under the exact same HSE ruling that this industry does (Work at height 2005) so whilst I may not have a lot of experience in a tree, I do have a lot of experience in a harness. I also have a lot of experience of the Work at Height act and what it entails having to be update trained yearly. The only difference is before the ruling last year the arb sector had a more relaxed approach to the rules and had certain exemptions. When the ruling came in saying that the arb sector had to conform to current regulations it's closed the gap meaning that the difference in what you can and can't do anchor wise when attached to a branch or a beam are no longer much different. 

Outside of regulations and what's on paper you're right, they are night and day!

[Khriss]

2 hours ago, AHPP said:

The thing with Paddy’s and Khriss’s approach is that they learned it from industries where costs and risks can always be given to someone else, eventually the consumer and taxpayer. Their industries are convolutedly regulated enough that they don’t need to concern themselves with sanity, compromise etc when instead they can enthusiastically overreact to some new guidance or regulation and create prima facie profitable work filling in forms, training people etc. The building industry is diabolical for it, slavishly following the minutest new diktat or, better yet, exceeding the requirement rather than merely meeting it. This has created the compliance arms race that means only the most boring cvnts get big contracts because only they can be arsed with the paperwork. It of course then becomes in their interest to tell everybody else that only they’re doing it right.

Stark contrast with the (altogether more wholesome) world where red blooded men of industry put their wit and capital into competition with that of other men and that’s that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How have you involved  me in this?  Guidance was clear for our climbers. From AA and HSE. Quite clear and blood color had nothing to do with it. Yr self confessed chip on yr shoulder aint nothing to do with me. Climb however  you like. K

[Khriss]

38 minutes ago, Ian Leach said:

I always thought it was hse guidelines not law.

Its Health n safety at Work Act 1974 which all yr regs and guidelines chain on from that, hence this very long thread on a Camp Gyro thingy.  K

[Stubby]

Paddy me old mucker . Just to clear things up ...On page nine  you say " its the LAW "  and then later on somewhere you say   " I'm not saying its the law " .  It wont affect me as the highest I ever get now is putting a pair of thick socks on . just wondered if it is or isn't the law . pretty please , with sugar on top ....🙂

[Paddy1000111]

6 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Paddy me old mucker . Just to clear things up ...On page nine  you say " its the LAW "  and then later on somewhere you say   " I'm not saying its the law " .  It wont affect me as the highest I ever get now is putting a pair of thick socks on . just wondered if it is or isn't the law . pretty please , with sugar on top ....🙂

Oh, are you on about the bit where I said "The law doesn't require you to use two ropes all the time"? What I mean't by that was that there are circumstances where one is acceptable but I can't name many. Usually you would have a climb line and a positional strop. I can't think of many circumstances where you wouldn't/couldn't have 2 anchors. The draft AA guidance has a bit about dropping down to one anchor when stationary to allow for a repositioning of the second anchor. 

 

The health and safety at work 1974 requires that anyone working for a company including the CEO must abide by the regulations. One Regulation (not guidance) of HSE is the Working at height act 2005. In there, two main types of harness use are identified, fall arrest (schedule 5 part 1) and work positioning (schedule 5 part 2) Fall arrest is for when you are working in a platform as an accident mitigator like being tied into a MEWP, those systems only require one anchor. We use work positioning harnesses which fall into part two. Ontop of the requirements of a fall arrest harness a work positioning harness MUST have a suitable secondary backup system except where it is "Not reasonably practicable to comply" (this is the bit where I said about it not being hard law that you always have to have 2 anchors). That last bit is what changed last year, from what I took from it, it was always assumed that it wasn't reasonable practicable to use a second system in a tree but then the offices had a re-arrangement or some new blood and then HSE decided that there is no reason why climbers can't use a secondary system and hence it rolled in. The industry guidance from HSE changed, the guidance from the AA changed and the training from NPTC changed too. Yes, it's impractical but they aren't wrong. There isn't really any reason why you cant have 2 anchors in a tree unless you're doing some really sketchy rigging. Most people are already using 2 rope for the most part, they have a primary climb line and then when they are cutting they use a positional strop. The only thing that's really changed is you need to retain a second anchor when ascending, descending and moving around.

 

In short, yes, it's law 😂

[Stubby]

4 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

Oh, are you on about the bit where I said "The law doesn't require you to use two ropes all the time"? What I mean't by that was that there are circumstances where one is acceptable but I can't name many. Usually you would have a climb line and a positional strop. I can't think of many circumstances where you wouldn't/couldn't have 2 anchors. The draft AA guidance has a bit about dropping down to one anchor when stationary to allow for a repositioning of the second anchor. 

 

The health and safety at work 1974 requires that anyone working for a company including the CEO must abide by the regulations. One Regulation (not guidance) of HSE is the Working at height act 2005. In there, two main types of harness use are identified, fall arrest (schedule 5 part 1) and work positioning (schedule 5 part 2) Fall arrest is for when you are working in a platform as an accident mitigator like being tied into a MEWP, those systems only require one anchor. We use work positioning harnesses which fall into part two. Ontop of the requirements of a fall arrest harness a work positioning harness MUST have a suitable secondary backup system except where it is "Not reasonably practicable to comply" (this is the bit where I said about it not being hard law that you always have to have 2 anchors). That last bit is what changed last year, from what I took from it, it was always assumed that it wasn't reasonable practicable to use a second system in a tree but then the offices had a re-arrangement or some new blood and then HSE decided that there is no reason why climbers can't use a secondary system and hence it rolled in. The industry guidance from HSE changed, the guidance from the AA changed and the training from NPTC changed too. Yes, it's impractical but they aren't wrong. There isn't really any reason why you cant have 2 anchors in a tree unless you're doing some really sketchy rigging. Most people are already using 2 rope for the most part, they have a primary climb line and then when they are cutting they use a positional strop. The only thing that's really changed is you need to retain a second anchor when ascending, descending and moving around.

 

In short, yes, it's law 😂

Like passed in parliament and shit ?