Poll on two rope technique.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

...and exampled has been ‘solved’ with a ‘solution’ which can be quantified and exampled, in many cases, to have made matters worse. 

Kevin, respectfully, and it's academic anyway as the decision is made (and was effectively required in 2005 when the Regs came in) but can you really evidence your last statement? 

 

Not that I'm asking you to, and indeed I wished I didn't keep getting drawn in, but just strikes me as a very damning statement, which many will jump on the bandwagon of, that really isn't evidenced based other than anecdotally. 

 

REMEMBER in my reply here I'm not envisaging '2 ropes' but rather a primary system with a suitable backup, which may of course be 2 ropes but may be other systems that change given particular circumstances (sorry, very wordy and can't think of a good example.)

 

Regards,
Paul

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The other issue here is that claiming HSE are trying to stop the industry climbing.

 

I don't believe this is the case at all but they are trying to make tree climbing safer, perhaps in a too simplistic way...but perhaps not.

 

With the development and increasing range of MEWPS / tree shears / grapple saws etc., and increasing pressure on justifying climbing, I can see "tree climbing" becoming more niche / specialists in the next 10 years, but not stopped.  

[Mr. Squirrel]

2 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

I can see why HSE took the decision though. When reading through the statistics for falls from height in the arb industry for 16-17-18 (I can't find up to date info further than that) The deaths and injuries that occurred would/could have been prevented by having a second anchor which I imagine raised the question of "Why can't they use a second anchor" to which there isn't really a good answer for ascents/descents/moving around unless you're doing rigging where there is a high likeliness of the branch tipping up, going between your two anchors and taking you with it. I'd be curious as to how many of you regularly find yourself just using your one climb line with no other anchor such as a positional strop during cuts? 

 

I'm not saying two rope is a good thing, just that I can see why they questioned why we weren't using it. 

 

Arboricultural Association - HSE Fall from Height Incidents involving arborists

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

<p class= lead bold mb10 >This article contains brief examples of the falls from height reported to HSE under RIDDOR.</p> <p>All injured persons were arborists.</p> <h3...

 

 

A positional strop is a no brainer, and I can't imagine not using one. 

 

I can see their thought process, but it feels like a great deal of energy invested in the wrong area to me. A couple of recurring themes in those accidents are branches breaking and not having a stopper knot. I imagine that the sort of people who put their main attachment on branches small enough to snap under their weight will continue to find ways of maiming themselves. 

 

That said. I wonder if we as individuals are somewhat complicit by not calling out people when we've felt they've been taking unnecessary risks. Eg. I've seen guys lanyard in to a small branch while advancing their climbing line, when they could've just as easily gone round the stem. It's probably strong enough, but why take the risk? Does the general attitude of letting people do it their way as it's worked for them so far let us down as an industry? I would guess yes... 

 

I'm in it for the long haul and will continue to focus on safer, more ergonomic methods of working. Two ropes is wallpapering over the cracks in the walls rather than looking at the issue, imo. I don't debate the position we're in legally, but I feel the supporting argument for it lacks substance and insight, and after careful consideration can't adopt these methods purely to maintain compliance. 

[Rich Rule]

5 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

 I'd be curious as to how many of you regularly find yourself just using your one climb line with no other anchor such as a positional strop during cuts? 

 

I'm not saying two rope is a good thing, just that I can see why they questioned why we weren't using it. 

 

Arboricultural Association - HSE Fall from Height Incidents involving arborists

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

<p class= lead bold mb10 >This article contains brief examples of the falls from height reported to HSE under RIDDOR.</p> <p>All injured persons were arborists.</p> <h3...

 

I would say most of us.  In fact, scratch that.  I cannot answer for others.

 

Always.  I only use one climb line and positioning strop.  I realised just after college that climbing on two ends of a line is not only cumbersome but archaic.

 

I climb 98% of the time SRT.  I have a long lanyard in a bag which could be used for a leggy tree as an extra line.  TBH I spliced it 5 years ago and never used it.  It's a good option to have though and it is always in the truck.  I tend to have the shorter lanyard and use it like that.

[Rich Rule]

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

Just been hung over,  up a largeish Poplar is enuff 😕 K

Don't drink on a school night them.

[Paddy1000111]

This is what I mean though. I don't know anyone who isn't using a positional strop when cutting which means that when we are physically "working" we are abiding to the 2 rope (or 2 anchor whatever you want to call it) ruling. The only time it seems that we aren't is during ascending/descending or generally moving about which going from that report I posted earlier is the time when people are falling by having their anchor fail, knots fail, no stop knot, failure to clip in (the utilities company near me had this happen, climber clipped into a petzl carritool instead of their hip D. 

 

There was only 2 occasions of people falling from cutting their climbing line where they weren't using a positional strop (or at least I assume they weren't or they wouldn't have fallen)

 

The only time we aren't already abiding by 2 rope is moving around which is a time that there's no danger of rigging lines etc so whilst being inconvenient I don't think you could call it more dangerous? 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Kevin, respectfully, and it's academic anyway as the decision is made (and was effectively required in 2005 when the Regs came in) but can you really evidence your last statement? 

 

Not that I'm asking you to, and indeed I wished I didn't keep getting drawn in, but just strikes me as a very damning statement, which many will jump on the bandwagon of, that really isn't evidenced based other than anecdotally. 

 

REMEMBER in my reply here I'm not envisaging '2 ropes' but rather a primary system with a suitable backup, which may of course be 2 ropes but may be other systems that change given particular circumstances (sorry, very wordy and can't think of a good example.)

 

Regards,
Paul

 

 

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!  

 

  

4 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

The other issue here is that claiming HSE are trying to stop the industry climbing.

 

I don't believe this is the case at all but they are trying to make tree climbing safer, perhaps in a too simplistic way...but perhaps not.

 

With the development and increasing range of MEWPS / tree shears / grapple saws etc., and increasing pressure on justifying climbing, I can see "tree climbing" becoming more niche / specialists in the next 10 years, but not stopped.  

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 😂

 

 

[Rich Rule]

2 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

This is what I mean though. I don't know anyone who isn't using a positional strop when cutting which means that when we are physically "working" we are abiding to the 2 rope (or 2 anchor whatever you want to call it) ruling.

Would you have wanted to be tied into this stem when it went pop?  
 

We were dismantling a knackered Norwegian Maple, twin stem and growing over protected buildings.  I was tied into the other 'knackered' Stem and the stem I was cutting didn't seem right.  So I took my flip line off and used one anchor.

 

When the stem popped, my feet started to move apart slightly.

 

Just goes to show not everything is to be blindly followed.

 

[Paddy1000111]

7 minutes ago, Rich Rule said:

Would you have wanted to be tied into this stem who it went pop?  
 

We were dismantling a knackered Norwegian Maple, twin stem and growing over protected buildings.  I was tied into the other 'knackered' Stem and the stem I was cutting didn't seem right.  So I took my flip line off and used one anchor.

 

When the stem popped, my feet started to move apart slightly.

 

Just goes to show not everything is to be blindly followed.

 

100% not! That is however when the exclusions come in and the ability to decide when it's safer not to use it. My point is, that's not an everyday issue...

[Rich Rule]

1 minute ago, Paddy1000111 said:

100% not! That is however when the exclusions come in and the ability to decide when it's safer not to use it. My point is, that's not an everyday issue...

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.