Some interesting reading

[Pete Mctree]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/pdf/arbnews0107.pdf

 

Got some good indications on where they are driving the legislation towards

[scotspine1]

Interesting that someone has been prosecuted by HSE under Work at Height Regs 2005 for not having a trained 2nd climber for rescuing. They were fined £3780.

 

Dont remember reading about it in the AA Newsletter or ISA's Treeline? Has anyone else heard of this incident?

[Yorkshireman]

a person capable of an aerial rescue should be present , certificated ?

 

I'd be more concerned if they didnt have a rescue kit rather than a piece of plastic saying cs38

[Lancstree]

Yeh I got this same info passed onto me by one of our gaffers. I wonder how the investigation was prompted? I wouldn't have guessed it was a spot check on qualifications - more than likely a tip off from someone who knew what qualifications the team had.

[skyhuck]

But its not legislation to climb with a rope long enough for a one pitch decent

[bob]

i believe they had already had a warning and improvement notice served upon the firm so when found to be breaking rules the HSE must act and fine away

[madclimber]

i agree with Bob, if a notice was served the employer should have made sure that his staff had adequate training to comply

[Ross Winchester]

cant be fairer than that a warning first.

[treedave]

Bob's on the money, they'd been served with an improvement notice and the when they re-inspected they found that the guy had been trained but was up a tree, so not available for rescue purposes!.

[Log-ologist]

Thanks Pete, I have seen other releases of that info sheet.

All the prosecutions should be regarded with interest.

It is notable that 2 prosecutions simply involved the lack of signage and guarding to prevent public harm.