Is it legal

[BenR]

Umm what qualifications? There currently is none, just some extremely basic courses over a few days to teach you the very basics, after that it's down to you to improve and move on. It takes years and self motivation to improve otherwise we would all be climbing on prussiks and both ends of our line.

 

An advanced climbing course would be good for those that need bits of paper to do things... for now perhaps everyone should go back to the prussic loop.. Better safe than sorry:laugh1:

 

Stationary rope technique would be a better name.

Edited May 5, 2014 by BenR

[kevin bingham]

Quite possible that the high point or redirect failed 'because' he was using Srt, as opposed to DdRT....due to 2:1 (or not quite) effect on the crotch with that set-up.

 

I prefer the term SRT as to refer to the fact that you're attached to a single part or leg of the line, DdRT for the same reason....before you start Kevin. I dont care how many lines make up the chain.

 

It doesn't matter what you care about, this thread is about the law cares about. The regulators care how many lines you have not how those lines are folded.

[kevin bingham]

I thought SRT was 'static rope technique', not 'single rope technique'. Cuts out the confusion of one or two ropes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

I think that would be good except almost everyone including the arbtalk description of this forum says SRT is single rope technique. But I'm not sure it matters as long as there is a clear difference between using one and two lines and one line.

[RC0]

It doesn't matter what you care about, this thread is about the law cares about. The regulators care how many lines you have not how those lines are folded.

 

You know what I meant. I'll reply appropriately when I get finished at work.

[kevin bingham]

I'm just sweating you I know what you meant and really I agree in some perspective. The whole concept of this particular thread points to the confusion there is on the subject and this is not the first time I have heard this. "If we start climbing single line we will start to have to follow rope access rules".

Should 2:1 single rope climbing be viewed differently than 1:1 single rope climbing as far as what should and shouldn't happen. Why is it that when people hear SRT and 1:1 climbing the legality is suspect. Does climbing 2:1 have a margin Of safety so much greater that a backup is not needed?

 

I honestly think most tree work is perfectly safe SRT. But I also don't think DRT or two rope climbing is as awful as people make it out. On top of not being awful, it is actually awesomely useful if you can utilize both ropes while not getting tangled. That is just a matter of practice. I have so far not had a climb where the two ropes did not help me accomplish a task safer and better than in SRT. Double rope technique.

[Eddy_t]

and as a p.s. to those who start bleating puwer, loler, and H&S, these are ACTS and STATUTES, and unless you give your consent to be controlled by them, are meaningless

 

 

An act is law, you know, like the health and safety at work act, or the wildlife and countryside act, or the town and country planning act, all of which are binding laws that are to be complied with, the regulations such as PUWER, loler, riddor and coshh are sub clauses within the same HASAWA law, which if you're an employer or carrying out works which has the potential to cause harm or injury, have to be complied with. Come on guys, you should be up to date with this stuff, not acting like it's just been written as a new law!

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[RC0]

I'm just sweating you I know what you meant and really I agree in some perspective. The whole concept of this particular thread points to the confusion there is on the subject and this is not the first time I have heard this. "If we start climbing single line we will start to have to follow rope access rules".

Should 2:1 single rope climbing be viewed differently than 1:1 single rope climbing as far as what should and shouldn't happen. Why is it that when people hear SRT and 1:1 climbing the legality is suspect. Does climbing 2:1 have a margin Of safety so much greater that a backup is not needed?

 

I honestly think most tree work is perfectly safe SRT. But I also don't think DRT or two rope climbing is as awful as people make it out. On top of not being awful, it is actually awesomely useful if you can utilize both ropes while not getting tangled. That is just a matter of practice. I have so far not had a climb where the two ropes did not help me accomplish a task safer and better than in SRT. Double rope technique.

 

Going back some years, climbers were taught to use both ends of their line to work the tree in the UK...lanyards weren't really the done thing. So thats not what you'd call DRT, but for arguments sake its exactly the same principle. But the point being that they were configured as a 2:1 system, with appropriate hardware to accommodate.

 

Obviously the hardware and techniques that makes 1:1 climbing workable differs somewhat. Is there a written standard or rule of thumb for a base-tie 1:1 system in the UK ? Or the ridirect (high point),up in the tree ? Somebody must know. If you're a pro-treeworker and you fall off an unsecured ladder without a safety line, your insurance company might tell you to go whistle. If you're ascending a tree with a base tie (single line 1:1) and your high point/redirect fails, possible the 2:1 effect a contributing factor.... you take a fall and get hurt....are you insured ? If such a claim ran into tens, possible hundreds of thousands....I can't imagine an insurance company let alone the HSE saying 'there your cash, get well soon'.

 

I'm out of UK legislation for 3 years now, but I'm pretty sure you can't just configure whatever climbing system you want and assume to be insured. Must be some trainers/assessors here on arbtalk....is SRT 1:1 part of any criteria ?

[agrimog]

acts and statutes are NOT laws, they are, and always will be acts and statutes, there have been no new laws since magna carta, and as long as we have a parlimentary system there wont be, there can only be acts of parliment......and as we have been operating under naval law sinc way way back, its all a crock of sh1t anyway......why do you think the acused stands in the dock?

[Arran Turner]

Going back some years, climbers were taught to use both ends of their line to work the tree in the UK...lanyards weren't really the done thing. So thats not what you'd call DRT, but for arguments sake its exactly the same principle. But the point being that they were configured as a 2:1 system, with appropriate hardware to accommodate.

 

Obviously the hardware and techniques that makes 1:1 climbing workable differs somewhat. Is there a written standard or rule of thumb for a base-tie 1:1 system in the UK ? Or the ridirect (high point),up in the tree ? Somebody must know. If you're a pro-treeworker and you fall off an unsecured ladder without a safety line, your insurance company might tell you to go whistle. If you're ascending a tree with a base tie (single line 1:1) and your high point/redirect fails, possible the 2:1 effect a contributing factor.... you take a fall and get hurt....are you insured ? If such a claim ran into tens, possible hundreds of thousands....I can't imagine an insurance company let alone the HSE saying 'there your cash, get well soon'.

 

I'm out of UK legislation for 3 years now, but I'm pretty sure you can't just configure whatever climbing system you want and assume to be insured. Must be some trainers/assessors here on arbtalk....is SRT 1:1 part of any criteria ?

 

Srt for access is now taught on your NPTC climbing and rescue ticket. You are briefly taught it but not assessed on it. If i remember correctly access was a lowerable base tie and access using hand acsenders pantin croll and footloop. I prefer a RW tbh

[kevin bingham]

It seems the more you look into all this stuff the less sense it makes