Correct qualifications to climb tree's?

[frank j]

A bit of bedtime reading for you

 

NPTC

 

Thanks for the help

[Joe Newton]

So it's OK to have 1 climber and an unqualified ground on site?

 

 

By unqualified I assume you mean qualified up to 30/31, but not 38.

[Blister]

Yep, I thought it was not just good practice but industry standard for insurance to have two climbers on site.

[Mat]

Yep, I thought it was not just good practice but industry standard for insurance to have two climbers on site.

 

Nope, legal requirement under work at height regs.

[Mat]

It's also a legal requirement to have a safe worplace (health and safety at work etc act)

 

And a requirement to identify hazards and implement suitable controls (managemet regs)

[Blister]

So you do need 2 climbers minimum then, unless your a contract climber......

[treequip]

It is by me. Depending on the job of course. Big trees, we tend to have all hands on deck. Smaller stuff, not so much.

 

Why don't you ask every subbie climber to raise their hands if they've climbed without a competent climber on the deck...

 

...This month.

 

Most of the time, and lets be honest, a chainsaw injury (probably the most likely scenario) is going to give you a good arterial bleed.

 

If you wait for a rescue climber, chances are you will be in a piss poor state before he gets his harness on, then you have to hope he doesn't fall apart when he gets covered in your claret.

 

All in all a rescue climber is a good idea on a risk assessment but in the real world?????

[Mat]

So you do need 2 climbers minimum then, unless your a contract climber......

 

Forget the 'contract climber' rubbish.

 

You should have a competent climber, and a competent groundsman capable of performing aerial rescue.

 

Just as you should drive at no more than 30 mph in a 30!

[Joe Newton]

Most of the time, and lets be honest, a chainsaw injury (probably the most likely scenario) is going to give you a good arterial bleed.

 

 

 

If you wait for a rescue climber, chances are you will be in a piss poor state before he gets his harness on, then you have to hope he doesn't fall apart when he gets covered in your claret.

 

 

 

All in all a rescue climber is a good idea on a risk assessment but in the real world?????

 

 

 

Forget the 'contract climber' rubbish.

 

You should have a competent climber, and a competent groundsman capable of performing aerial rescue.

 

Just as you should drive at no more than 30 mph in a 30!

 

 

I agree with both.

 

Ideally yes. We don't live in an ideal world however. Practically it's unfeasable a lot of the time.

 

Like Treequip reckons. If I do myself a minor mischief I can get myself down. If I proper do myself at 60', and can't get myself down, with an arterial bleed, I'm buggered.

 

I'm not against the idea, but I do wonder how far I'd get in this business if I only climbed with another competent climber on site.

 

(FWIW - I know unqualified people who could rescue me more efficiently than a lot of lads who have their 38. Qualified doesn't mean competent.)

[eggsarascal]

I agree with both.

 

Ideally yes. We don't live in an ideal world however. Practically it's unfeasable a lot of the time.

 

Like Treequip reckons. If I do myself a minor mischief I can get myself down. If I proper do myself at 60', and can't get myself down, with an arterial bleed, I'm buggered.

 

I'm not against the idea, but I do wonder how far I'd get in this business if I only climbed with another competent climber on site.

 

(FWIW - I know unqualified people who could rescue me more efficiently than a lot of lads who have their 38. Qualified doesn't mean competent.)

 

I guess in the domestic game you can pretty much do as Ya like?

 

I've got to refresh my confined space ticket soon. £340+vat, a trip upto Northampton and a day's lost work........ Wouldn't get on most sites without it though. No top man. No work.

.