2 rope climbing are we sticking to the rules

[Mr. Squirrel]

On 15/05/2022 at 11:25, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Just a quick one to say, as anticipated, and certainly in the short-medium term (relatively, meaning 5-10 yrs maybe), we are aware, anecdotally, the industry hasn't embraced / engaged with the '2 rope working' (which, AAMOI is one option in achieving the use of a back-up system...but others are available) in the whole. 

 

HSE, as the regulator, have insisted on this, they actually wanted '2 ropes' at all times so other options equating to a backup system is a concession that we pushed for and that's what's written into the industry ICOP and TG1. Simplistically they saw IRATA as setting then benchmark and require us as an industry, collectively, to reach a comparable safe system of working...in their eyes. 

 

I don't climb these days but I do understand the resistance, and the rationale / reasons, I really do, but equally I have seen contractors / climbers who've embraced it and work effectively and efficiently, okay maybe a little slower but arguably a lot safer...arguably.

 

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.

  

ATB and 1, 2 ..or 7 ropes, keep safe.

Cheers

Paul

 

It still confuses me that the hse want to make us more like IRATA, when we’re clearly vastly different industries. I think the ‘argument’ that two ropes makes everyone safer in all situations is absurd, personally. I also consider the AA’s part in this a disgraceful show of weakness. They handled the situation awfully. 
I do believe that there are an unacceptable number of accidents in the UK. However comparing these statistics to other European companies we’re a bit of an anomaly. I believe it’s far more a cultural and educational issue within the industry; and this is where I believe the AA really let us as an industry down, and continue to do so. 
I don’t know anyone who uses two ropes other than when necessary. Slack attitudes towards safety and big ego’s on sites are more to blame for these accidents. Working in an unsafe manner, be that using silly wee anchor points, free climbing or one handing saws isn’t cool or quick. It’s f**king stupid and ruins lives. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 hours ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

It still confuses me that the hse want to make us more like IRATA, when we’re clearly vastly different industries. I think the ‘argument’ that two ropes makes everyone safer in all situations is absurd, personally. I also consider the AA’s part in this a disgraceful show of weakness. They handled the situation awfully. 
I do believe that there are an unacceptable number of accidents in the UK. However comparing these statistics to other European companies we’re a bit of an anomaly. I believe it’s far more a cultural and educational issue within the industry; and this is where I believe the AA really let us as an industry down, and continue to do so. 
I don’t know anyone who uses two ropes other than when necessary. Slack attitudes towards safety and big ego’s on sites are more to blame for these accidents. Working in an unsafe manner, be that using silly wee anchor points, free climbing or one handing saws isn’t cool or quick. It’s f**king stupid and ruins lives. 

Not quite sure what to say here, I'm sorry you feel we let you, and the industry, down so badly but it really wasn't for the want of trying but the HSE W@H experts were adamant 2nd line was required (hence the IRATA reference / comparison) and we did manage to get a concession for use of a backup system as it was demonstrated that in some situations insisting on 2 ropes wasn't suitable.  

 

HSE are supposed to be monitoring accidents in the industry closer than previously and it will be interesting to see what the stats show (or don't show) going forward. 

 

Thanks for your post and I couldn't agree more with your last few sentences.

Paul  

[Mr. Squirrel]

46 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Not quite sure what to say here, I'm sorry you feel we let you, and the industry, down so badly but it really wasn't for the want of trying but the HSE W@H experts were adamant 2nd line was required (hence the IRATA reference / comparison) and we did manage to get a concession for use of a backup system as it was demonstrated that in some situations insisting on 2 ropes wasn't suitable.  

 

HSE are supposed to be monitoring accidents in the industry closer than previously and it will be interesting to see what the stats show (or don't show) going forward. 

 

Thanks for your post and I couldn't agree more with your last few sentences.

Paul  

Of course I feel you let us down, you did 🤷🏻 We’ll not you personally, but the AA. 

The IRATA reference is noted but irrelevant. We’re working in completely different circumstances. Backup system/two systems, it isn’t a concession at all. From what I’ve seen and heard the AA basically rolled over for tummy rubs. You commissioned a consultation which was basically ignored, there was a petition with over 6,000 signatures on it, there were countless professional arborists desperate to be involved in constructive debate on the subject and yet everything was essentially decided behind closed doors. The whole process was flawed and displayed a complete lack of interest in actually engaging with the industry. 

The AA acts as our regulating body, which we pay membership fees to for, let’s face it, not that much. Rather than stand fast for the best interests of climbing arborists the AA have created a situation where probably 95%+ of climbers are no longer working in a compliant manner. That isn’t them failing to adhere to safety standards, it’s the AA failing in a rare opportunity to stand up for their best interests. Pitiful. 
 

About bl**dy time the hse started taking a few more notes on accidents. The number of ‘tree work’ accident case studies on their site where those involved had no qualifications is ridiculous. That’s a diy accident, not a tree work accident. German hse stated that they see no need or benefit to follow suit in implementing two rope requirements over there. But then their accident statistics are actually relevant. 
 

It seems to me that the AA were simply reluctant to address deeper rooted problems in the industry. I’ve spoken to people who worked for AA approved contractors where the use of class A drugs on site was a common and accepted occurrence. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Mr. Squirrel

[Rich Rule]

51 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

 

 

HSE are supposed to be monitoring accidents in the industry closer than previously and it will be interesting to see what the stats show (or don't show) going forward. 

 

 

Hi Paul, I think it will be interesting to see what kind of spin gets put on the results.

 

As far as I can see the majority of climbers I know and see on various forms of internet, haven’t adopted the working practices of the new guidelines.

 

If the numbers of incidents reduce, what will they put it down to?

 

 

 

 

[Blah]

On 15/05/2022 at 21:27, Mark Bolam said:

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

This. I carry a 60m SRT setup, a 30m SRT or DRT setup and a 25m hitchclimber for dirty connies. I'll choose whatever fits the tree and the situation best. It's my life on the line, I'll choose how I can do what needs doing in a way that is safe for me.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

Ooo sorry I haven’t checked in for a while. Looks like a lit a fire and just walked away. Sorry Paul I thought you might get roped in to this one at some point.
My argument is that I have been climbing around 14 years and never had a climbing accident, touch wood. The people who have had climbing accidents that I know of have always done it because they were either complacent or cutting with a saw a few inches from their arm. I have seen and herd of more accidents in the top of a conifer hedge where people are topping and making quick cuts and let’s face it what the hell are 2 lines in that situation ever going to change other than make the whole job more stressful (most people working in that situation are doing it with a strop and nothing else).

The two rope thing came about because there were more accidents but did HSE look into what accidents happened or was it just a case of “oh crap this industry has countless accidents let’s make it more of a nightmare to even work”?

I completely get what you are saying that in the future more people will be climbing on two ropes but that is not safer at all and what we will see is more stupid accidents because climbers are getting tangled in 2 ropes or they will cut one of their anchors out of a tree because they are not thinking straight. More ropes more complications as fair as I can see.

I’m not having a go and I started this thread because I genuinely can’t see a be if it to this situation and most climbers I come across feel the same why.

[Dan Maynard]

On 16/05/2022 at 22:07, Mr. Squirrel said:

About bl**dy time the hse started taking a few more notes on accidents. The number of ‘tree work’ accident case studies on their site where those involved had no qualifications is ridiculous. That’s a diy accident, not a tree work accident.

I was going to post the other day about AFAG 401 being superseded, can't see any evidence of that on the HSE website.

 

The working at height case studies include one where the climber got his lines tangled in the top being felled, a couple with people on ladders with no rope at all, one bloke who set a fire at the base of a conifer which spread...

 

There are two which could be anchor point failure, one had all the ropes come out of the tree with a rigged piece. This isn't solved by two anchors either. There is one which seems to be simple anchor point failure, but we know nothing about what they anchored in to so really not evidence that putting more crap anchors in will help.

[Dan Maynard]

On 14/05/2022 at 21:59, Steve Bullman said:

I don’t think theres so much wrong with the training, I mean it’s not rocket science. No, the real game changer would be to raise the bar substantially enough in the tests to lower the pass rate to a point that the type who are most likely to kill themselves never get the opportunity. I’d like to know what the general pass rate is at colleges. I’d also like to know what percentage of those have been observed by the trainers and assessors as just not having what it takes.

There's nothing in NPTC qualification to test you can tell what species of tree you're climbing, and only a vague reference to factors affecting selection of anchor point including species, time of year. Not enough detail at all in my opinion.

 

There's also no conifer hedge topping.

[MattyF]

There's nothing in NPTC qualification to test you can tell what species of tree you're climbing, and only a vague reference to factors affecting selection of anchor point including species, time of year. Not enough detail at all in my opinion.

 

There's also no conifer hedge topping.

Ok here is my view , you should not be taking nptcs unless you are doing an apprenticeships or proven 6months on site experience with competent staff .. if you want to do saw training for home use a lantra course would suffice.

 

In response to mick asking where is my evidence to say how long or how many people stay in the industry after training , I don't have figures but that is a conservative guess from working in a commercial setting to see how long the average stay for , I doubt a good half don't last more than 3 years , some less than 6 months.

It would be interesting to see how many folk who where posters on this forum since it began have left the industry.. I would guess most of its members.

[Mick Dempsey]

4 hours ago, MattyF said:

Ok here is my view , you should not be taking nptcs unless you are doing an apprenticeships or proven 6months on site experience with competent staff .. if you want to do saw training for home use a lantra course would suffice.

 

 

That seems unfair.

If someone wants to invest in their own future and fund a training course in order to get a skill why shouldn’t they? If they give up in a year who loses? Only them and their time/money.

 

You cannot get any sort of work without tickets and now you’re saying you cannot get tickets without work!

 

I was 31 when I did my 10 weeker, do you think I had the time or inclination to do an apprenticeship?