Climbing Kit, Loler and the Sole Trader, Whats the Point?

[treequip]

so much material i would be surprised if it ever dies

 

It probably smells like something that did

[Gary Prentice]

everyone seems to be missing an important point here, the inspection calls for a compitent person, go and read what H&S deem as a copitent person, a lot of inspectors will be starting to look for other jobs. I have been through this with a crane fitted to a mog, put a timber grab on it......its a loader, no loller reqd, put a hook on it, its a crane, loller reqd, who can do the loller ? a compitent person, as an owner operator, I am deemed to be a compitent person and can carry out the loller, bur H&S would rather I didnt, note, not cant not do it, just rather I wouldnt, getting confused yet ?....... go back to the start of everything H&S say....its an ADVISORY statement, ie they wont commit to anything preferring to leave it to someone else to make a desicion. so as a one man climbing operation, are you compitent to loller your own gear......yes, in the eyes of big brother YOU ARE A COMPITENT PERSON ........dont believe me, look it up for yourself

 

Some years ago a HSE fella landed on a site, fresh from a two week course on the arb industry. Proudly announcing that he was Manchesters H&S man over tree workers he procede to inspect and question everything.

 

With only one 'climber' on site he jumped on the absence of a rescue climber. When we said that the owner was there as a rescuer, tickets were mentioned. I said that I'd trained him, we practiced regularly and I was confident in his ability. Wasn't that as good, or better, than someone with a ticket who hadn't climbed since gaining it.

 

Short answer was, it would be better with a ticket, to cover ourselves. For some reason he refused to give an opinion or a definitive answer.

[markieg31]

I suppose the only real point is so that employers are not making employees use kit that puts them in danger.

[Mark Bolam]

I suppose the only real point is so that employers are not making employees use kit that puts them in danger.

 

 

That's a very good point Markie, and I'm totally onside on that score.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[markieg31]

That's a very good point Markie, and I'm totally onside on that score.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

Entirely up to you if you want to hang around in a 10 year old harness! As long as you make sure your groundie is not beneath you when the bridge snaps!!

[tree-fancier123]

a replacement bridge for my Komet Butterfly is 13.45 +vat, rather just spend that

[markieg31]

a replacement bridge for my Komet Butterfly is 13.45 +vat, rather just spend that

 

A harness is more than just a bridge. I know it is a high wearing part and that is probably something that does get looked at it is the other bits that dont that are the worry

[tree-fancier123]

it would be good if there was a site that documented all arb accidents due to climbing equipment failure, so you could see if a trend emerges.

There was a magazine article posted on here of a US guy, firm owner, who let his crew use his rope, then when he went up it snapped and he's paralized and wheelchaired, as they had damaged his rope and he didn't check it. He said always run the rope through your hands end to end at the start of every climb. The one day he was rushed and failed to do this caught him out.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

it would be good if there was a site that documented all arb accidents due to climbing equipment failure, so you could see if a trend emerges.

There was a magazine article posted on here of a US guy, firm owner, who let his crew use his rope, then when he went up it snapped and he's paralized and wheelchaired, as they had damaged his rope and he didn't check it. He said always run the rope through your hands end to end at the start of every climb. The one day he was rushed and failed to do this caught him out.

 

Exceptionally useful.... For 1, I'd imagine it would debunk the Type C trs for climbing situation and maybe lead to a designed 'fit for purpose' solution rather than just adding more protection to an existing product (Type A) because obviously, aerial use of a chainsaw must be more dangerous than ground use!

 

I mean, really, who actually makes cuts behind them self whilst climbing? I find it difficult to imagine and consequently question the viability and necessity of type C trs. In fact, you could go so far as to question the viability of either type A or C for aerial work since, personally, I very rarely make cuts that aren't between waist and chest / head height.... And where's the mandatory protection for those areas? There ain't none!

Edited October 22, 2016 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[tree-fancier123]

Exceptionally useful.... For 1, I'd imagine it would debunk the Type C trs for climbing situation and maybe lead to a designed 'fit for purpose' solution rather than just adding more protection to an existing product (Type A) because obviously, aerial use of a chainsaw must be more dangerous than ground use!

 

I mean, really, who actually makes cuts behind them self whilst climbing? I find it difficult to imagine and consequently question the viability and necessity of type C trs. In fact, you could go so far as to question the viability of either type A or C for aerial work since, personally, I very rarely make cuts that aren't between waist and chest / head height.... And where's the mandatory protection for those areas? There ain't none!

 

I have been tempted to modify a set of chainsaw trousers ( cheapo ones with hi viz stripes that really look the part) by simply removing the duvet quilt bit and just wearing the outer fabric, purely for use in summer where some busy body could be thinking of a sending a photo to HSE - typically passing LANTRA assessors etc. On my first cocky day with these modified pants I would be bound to end up in casualty, the doctors stitching me up during a blood transfusion 'you silly man'