2 rope climbing are we sticking to the rules

[maybelateron]

I read all the threads and documents I could find when the 2 rope issue was at consultation stage. My eventual understanding was that you did not have to have two ropes that could get you back to ground, rather that at all times you should have two separate anchor points, one rope to each of them. I also understood that it was regarded as acceptable to be connected by only one rope when doing a changeover, as long as you weren't advancing as well.

For years prior to all this I have through preference climbed with one long rope (zigzag these days), one short strop 3.5 - 4m, and one long "strop" of 9-10m. The long strop is nothing like as cumbersome as a full rope, yet long enough to reach another anchor point, whenever one is available.

The only time I ever use two full ropes is if my long strop won't suffice. Earlier this year we lopped/pollarded a Weeping Willow, and one of the main branches was much easier to access by installing two ropes from ground level. I'm sure many of you would have managed without the second rope, but at 62 I have to use any trick that helps!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

5 hours ago, nath said:

As the voice of the uk Arb industry, did the AA at any point actually fight this or merely look for concessions? Simple yes or no answer would be great

Yes

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

5 hours ago, Treetom15 said:

Also regarding the AA, I’ve always been confused as to how a company can be arb approved when they only audit 1 team on 1 day? I know there must be more to it, but some of the worst working practice I’ve seen is from approved contractors……

If this came to our attention, and with good evidence / supporting statements etc., we would investigate it robustly and take action as appropriate. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

4 hours ago, Timbertom111 said:

I definitely agree with this. I've been subbed in as a climber to get firms through an AA Aproval. Paid handsomely for it mind 😉

As a matter of interest did you 'sub' for the companies prior to the AA approval? If so, then that's fine as some businesses do 'sub-in' expertise as they need it...it's about managing that effectively. 

 

Also, respectfully, and whilst the climber clearly has an important role to play, there is a lot more involved, including on the worksite and other operatives work activities and knowledge etc.

 

The assessment system is effective, on the whole, and more robust than previously and that will hopefully become even more so going forward. 

 

[Mike Hill]

Does the AA investigate wether or not the crew being assessed is actually employed by the company seeking AA aproval?

 

I have heard from various credible sources that hiring a crew of " all stars" is a common ploy on assessment day.

 

Also for a large company such as Bartletts, does each depot have an assessment or does a single assessment cover the entire organisation?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

6 minutes ago, Mike Hill said:

Does the AA investigate wether or not the crew being assessed is actually employed by the company seeking AA aproval?

 

I have heard from various credible sources that hiring a crew of " all stars" is a common ploy on assessment day.

 

Also for a large company such as Bartletts, does each depot have an assessment or does a single assessment cover the entire organisation?

Employed, or engaged, i.e. sub-contractors (LOSC, although this usually only applies to the climber, not 'bona-fide' businesses, although this can / does happen within the Utility scheme and alongside employed teams.) 

We are aware of the claims of the 'all stars' crew but I'm convinced this is not the case in practice. 

 

Bartletts 12/13 depots are all subject to individual assessments for the ARB Approval (the SSIP 'H&S compliance' aspect is a Head Office based activity which covers the whole business...but the depots, individually, still need to show they understand the compliance systems and demo them in action, so to speak.)

  

 

[openspaceman]

Good of you to stay hanging in there Paul, though I'm no fan of trade bodies.

[Dan Maynard]

9 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

 

AA TG1 is a priced publication, some claw-back for the funds invested in writing it, and the ICOP, but the associated Safety Guide (AFAG 401 / 401 replacement) which gives some insight is a free download  

Arboricultural Association - Arboricultural Association Safety Guides

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons.

  

 

Afag401 doesn't seem to have been updated since 2013 though?

 

Has TG1 been a big seller?

[Treetom15]

@AA Teccie (Paul)

Thanks for being so open and replying to everyone👍
Do you think that the AA will ever be open to a re working of the 2 rope working method, and in doing so this would help towards making it non compulsory (at least in the eyes of the HSE)? It just seems to be so widely disregarded, surely it would be good to have a middle ground that the majority of staff would actually stick to?

[Mark Bolam]

The problem I have with two rope working under the current guidelines is that HSE see it as a ‘one size fits all’ policy, which we all know is bollocks.

 

What is also bollocks is to discount it entirely.

 

I always have two systems in the truck, SRT and DRT (I can’t be arsed to type Ddrt every time) and will normally choose one depending on the job.

 

Some really sketchy trees I’ve used a bomber anchor and climbed on the second system just in case, and used both to triangulate on really awkward stuff, but in reality, like others have said, it’s pretty rare.

 

Single stem connies?

WTF is your second ‘anchor’ achieving?

 

I’ll choose what is quickest and safest for me every tree I climb.

 

I’m really glad to hear that I’m not a total dinosaur, and that most pro climbers are using their experience and brains rather than a badly thought out spreadsheet.

 

Great thread @Thesnarlingbadger