Poll on two rope technique.

[Khriss]

Just now, skyhuck said:

You are simply making the very same point I am.

Nope you said ' eliminate'   make risk to zero, which wont happen at 5mph. K  

[skyhuck]

1 minute ago, Khriss said:

Nope you said ' eliminate'   make risk to zero, which wont happen at 5mph. K  

Same goes for two ropes.

[htb]

35 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

And if we all drove at 5MPH we could probably eliminate road deaths.

Increase in whiplash injuries though when I rear end them though........

[Khriss]

Just now, skyhuck said:

Same goes for two ropes.

Which it didnt from UAG 167 notification.   Climber fell after finishing work using 2Rope system. The point is,  managing  risks,  which is a lot more than taking a default point and prayer or whathave you. 2Rope can be better. 

 

My ha'penny worth is,  i climb mostly now for crown inspections on SRT, with a side strop ( going UP and 'looking around'  ) but big dismantle or crown reduction i would use 2 systems. Because i can throw line  well and its easier. K

[jarborist]

'just saddens me now most sites and life in general is ran by idiots with risk assessments trying to justify there positions in life by making up and justifying what ever stupid idea that pops in to there head because they have a degree. '

'Therein lies the problem IMO.  People who are in charge of governing an industry’s safe practices, with only limited practical experience within the industry.' 

 

👍👍👍

 

Speaking to a lot of them over the years. They have a weird arrogance right down to how they talk about arbs in general (although they would call themselves arbs too). 

Note to self : Need to just keep cracking on with my own thing. 

[Paddy1000111]

2 hours ago, Rich Rule said:

Granted, that isn’t an everyday issues.  But there will be times when preparation for a sharp exit will be needed.  Many situations can cause a piece of wood to come back at the climber, split or just mean you gotta get out of the way, pronto.

 

I try and make cuts with single line and lanyard when possible.  But I am not going to put myself at an increased level of risk just because some suit has made a recommendation and it has been agreed to be the way forward.

 

Therein lies the problem IMO.  People who are in charge of governing an industry’s safe practices, with only limited practical experience within the industry.

That's true, it's one of those things though. Two anchor is, as it says, two anchor. It doesn't necessarily have to be two separate branches or two separate growths. I've often tied into to the same large limb or two separate but very close anchors. I use a 10m positional strop with the tail stowed in a bag which can go into nearby crotches. It removes the risks of a branch snapping and there being no backup or a climbing system failure (knots, cut rope, etc) whilst maintaining the ability to swing out the way if needed. 

 

In reality the rules allow you to be on one rope where having two ropes is a higher risk. It just seems like a lot of people seem to confuse "safer" with "I'll just put in the risk assessment that one rope is safer" which isn't the same... 

 

At the end of the day, like I was saying on that other topic, it's down to the climber what they do. They just have to be aware that it *could* come back to bite them 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

 

I often wonder if topics like this are going to make HSE use someone as an example or set a president with a single rope fall to stamp their foot down!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 minutes ago, htb said:

Increase in whiplash injuries though when I rear end them though........

I rear ended a car today....

 

Other driver got out for a row, imagine my surprise when I saw he was a dwarf!

 

He said, "...I'm not Happy..."

 

I asked, "...Well which one are you then...?"

 

That's when the fight started 😂

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Paul, mate, it's OK.  I genuinely laughed when reading that - in a good humoured way.

 

I know you're bound by corporate etiquette - a yolk I cast off many years ago and much the happier for it - I was never much for sugar coating anyway.

 

Despite having spread my wings and freed myself from toeing the party line, the corporate speak thesaurus is still on the shelf and often referred to.

 

Never in the history of humankind has a sentence or a dialogue ever opened with the phrase "respectfully" which didn't actually mean "right you cvnt , you're talking bullox, you're full of shite and I'm gonna set you right."

 

It's just the way it is....  😂  The effort is appreciated but the actual meaning is well known - and I don't mind at all.

 

I'd agree though, it probably is a damning statement - but also it is as accurate and succinct a way of expressing my personal feeling on the subject as came to mind at the time.

 

It's become de rigueur to challenge a position by asking for an evidenced based rationale - in many cases, rightly so.  

 

In this case it is like asking me to prove something that I don't believe has happened - impossible.  

 

What is possible is to reference the literally 1000s of adverse comments across numerous similar threads, predominantly from experienced and professional practitioners, which present a fairly unified criticism of the HSE driven imposition of what generally appears to be an illogical retro-step.

 

It should however be possible to evidence the arb industry accident based analysis which provides the unequivocal data to support this fundamental policy / training / practice change.  I'm not sure we even have the means to collect the accurate data let alone analyse it in such a way as to derive credible need for activity changes.

 

You can't beat a bit of illogical bandwagoning 😂. Just ask Boris!  

 

  

I recall quite clearly the AAAC workshop all those years ago in the depths of Cornwall - you quite clearly articulated the AA position that MEWP should be default and climbing only where MEWP physically couldn't be brought to site.  Cost nor time nor inconvenience were valid reasons for not MEWPing and climbing was only acceptable in the risk hierarchy where MEWP was not possible due to access etc.

 

I got the point of that but I always felt it lacked a 'real world' (domestic arb) credibility.  

 

Then we had that dreadful incident where the MEWP was firmly ensconced in the RA (it was in a park or something - can't rightly remember) and the blind obedience to pre-established RA procedure actually resulted in the site conditions not being properly considered, the MEWP was set up incorrectly and over it went.  I can't rightly remember the exact details but it struck me then that the weak point was neither the system nor the equipment but rather the operators willingness to just follow laid down procedure rather than actually DO a dynamic assessment.   That remains my personal concern for 'systems' to be given greater priority than proper checks, operator knowledge and experience.

 

All that said, I'd love a tracked MEWP and have been saving accordingly - but that is mostly because I'm old and increasingly idle 😂

 

 

Kevin, "respectfully", respectfully was not my sentence starter  ....I knew I'd bl**dy regret posting a reply (I'll learn one day!) 

Enjoy your weekend...as much as possible in Covid'rama.

ATB m keep safe..

Paul  

Edited February 5, 2021 by AA Teccie (Paul)
Extra words

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Kevin, "respectfully", respectfully was not my sentence starter  ....I knew I'd bl**dy regret posting a reply (I'll learn one day!) 

Enjoy your weekend...as much as possible in Covid'rama.

ATB m keep safe..

Paul  

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[skyhuck]

8 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

 It doesn't necessarily have to be two separate branches or two separate growths. I've often tied into to the same large limb or two separate but very close anchors.

I think you need to go back and reread the new rules.