Pete Mctree

Thanks for the input Jamie - nice to read you again 😎

Our only chance is if the industry continues to reject the draft icop & force the AA to re-engage the HSE as they could not proceed with it in its current form. I predict that the push back from the industry will place them in a difficult position though, as if they do as the HSE want, against the current weight of opinion, then they will cease being the voice of arboriculture in the UK.

How do people really expect someone to become competent or even proficient in 5 days work at height training? As an industry we are not happy to spend money on training- it needs to happen either on site during work time & costing loss of production or through extra training at a direct hit to the wallet. We need to adjust and reassess our expectations as we all had to start somewhere and learn at someone's expense

I feel sorry for the trainers at the moment- there is no relevant ACoP only a directive from the HSE that they have to teach two rope working. I do question the expertise and experience of the member of the HSE that has enforced this. It may be relevant to other industries but by the decision alone it demonstrates an ignorance of the Arb world.

I think the discussion about effective aerial rescue and enhanced or training standards are what we should have had, as opposed to having to fight against this rediculus 2 rope fiasco. We have to look at ourselves as an industry & honestly admit our short comings.

We cannot condense the posts

I think in the immediate we need to concentrate on fighting this. Reply to the consultation on the ACoP, tell the AA that it is not workable or positive in the reduction of accidents. If as an industry we reject it then they would have to go back to the HSE with that fact. If it is re - written with 2 rope working, we should be able to review again & reject if necessary. This should happen until an acceptable document is presented. This however requires a unity in our actions, we ALL need to do this to stand a chance of success. when all fails, then we work out how to make it happen ☹️

Base for ascent. I ALWAYS switch to a canopy anchor for working.

You are missing the point completely- non of us are in favour of mandatory 2 working lines. you asked if a short rope, long rope & lanyard fulfilled the criteria in the draft ICOP and supporting documents from the AA. It doesn’t, as it clearly states that both ropes have to be long enough to reach the ground. Simples !

There are some other changes I have found that could have implications - an example is; 2.11.6.10 d rope splicing - this effectively ends the self or non factory splicing of ropes. Not a positive move in my books it is going to take a while to work through this properly

If people have real objections to working on two ropes then they need to respond to the AA consultation document- they have given us the opertunity to object & we ALL need to do it.

I agree, I meant that it was not very applicable for our unique industry. I sometimes struggle to write with the clarity I desire

The draft ICOP will be out for peer review soon I think. Then we can have our say on it & any issues can be highlighted 👍

We are just going to mention all valid points like this when the ICOP comes up for review & see what they suggest. We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation

I think we are all running ahead here a little. Although implemented in theory, the ICOP has not been finalised and put out to consultation yet, never mind published. I think there will be some scope to comment upon it, albeit in a composed and careful manor and express our thoughts on the two rope scenario. EDIT - the point below has already been covered by the HSE & AA. 2 ropes is default unless risk assessed etc As a point of interest, I looked at the regulations with regards to work positioning and fail to see where it says two ropes are compulsory. It says where two lines are not "reasonably practical" a single anchor can be utilised.