Pete Mctree

Really pisses me off things like this - sorry to hear it. I never get stuff dropped without a signature that is worth anything now- learnt that the hard way years ago. What has this to do with the supplier?

Thanks Paul. I am always the optimist & I hope that a barrage of constructive well composed reason & fact will flip the common sense button at the HSE to "on"

@AA Teccie (Paul)do you know if there has been any further communication with the HSE on this issue? I wonder what the ramifications would be if the AA & industry as a whole refused to write an ACOP including this on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the safety within the industry? I cannot see any way they could force anyone within arboriculture to do it.

Is the chainbreak fouled and rubbing?

i have seen it done. it cuts well very well but unfortunately eats chains - the 200t is a bit too powerful for such lightweight cutting equipment

Are you rigging with 11.7mm climbing line? I advise starting with a decent ports wrap or bollard - you can natural crotch the crown if needed with one. Perhaps investigate rigging rings as a cheaper alternative to a block

I have worked within the tree industry for well over 20 years, primarily as a climber. I have no objection to using two lines and I do use them as and when required, however I can see many scenarios where it would be detrimental. In addition to the valid points made in prior posts, I have these to add. 1. Increased risk by the use of marginal anchor points in attempt to comply. This will no doubt occur, especially in trees that are in a compromised condition. It will also encourage a dangerous occurrence of relying on such marginal anchor points as people will feel secure knowing they have a backup. 2. Fatigue Tree climbing is fatiguing, both mentally and physically and adding a second system will have a cost to both. Physically it is more weight to carry and manage, harder work when you have to lean into the lines & discomfort of being pulled in more directions. This will be compounded by the significantly increased period of time required to complete the task. Mentally, having extra ropes and connectors to deal with will have an effect, especially with the less proficient climbers and again, this will be over the extended duration of time within the tree. Each of these issues is minor in itself, but combined they are significant. As an industry we are very aware that tiredness and general fatigue, create situations where the individual can make poor decisions - this is when accidents occur. 3. Accidents within the tree and emergency egress. In the rare and unfortunate occurrence of an accident, a double rope system has a critical flaw in that it requires two hands to descend. A large proportion of cut injuries are to the arms and the inability to bail out with a single hand after removing the body strop would be lost. Especially if both lines are weighted and providing support where disconnecting one would lead to a fall or pendulum swing. I had the misfortune of such an accident and lacerated my brachial artery, a time critical injury that required I got to the ground immediately to receive treatment - waiting for rescue would have been fatal. I am not sure that I would be here typing this if I had the further complications of a second weighted system to deal with…...

The new ACOP will require it to be edited no doubt- bad timing

If these recommendations are adopted, the LANTRA scheme will be out of date I am sure.

If common sense were to prevail then the AA will refuse the HSE's recommendations as not fit for purpose. In the new ACOP they would carefully redefine srt as "static line work positioning". It will probably be unavoidable that single line access will require a backup. Two rope working would be advised when it was deemed necessary and the operation and scenario allow it. will never happen though

the 2nd line used in the irata world is not a working line. It is a backup attached usually dorsally or sternally with a device that follows the climber and only comes into play when needed. This does not transfer well to treework where task, equipment & method are different & where the Issues arise

I fail to see the increased risk of srt as opposed to ddrt - even during access what is the difference between srt, footlocking the tail of a ddrt line or footlocking a doubled line? Yet I can differentiate between them on risk assessment? I know I'm just a thick tree monkey cursed with a little common sense, but this just nonsense to me. I think this whole scenario will be the big test for the Arb association & it will no doubt effect how it is perceived by many in the Arb community. I do not doubt that you are doing your best Paul, but the risk of dividing the Industry with regards to compliance or complete disregard to legislation is real. You know how far this industry has progressed over this last decade & it would be a travesty for one man in the HSE to fuck all that work up, because he cannot see the bigger picture.

There is always change, but it is often not for the best & can create a real rift. I climb with two lines if required to acces the whole canopy, so I am not against it in any way where needed, but to introduce it as climbing dogma would be a mistake in my opinion. What I tried to say (my written words often fail me), was that at a certain point there is so much going in the tree for the climber (especially the less experienced)that it becomes a massive negative. This overload leads to increased stress levels, fatigue and ultimately poor decision making, which is when things start to go wrong. so, If there is a problem with peoples climbing then we need to look at initial and subsequent training and development throughout there early career - not throw another £300 worth of kit at them. There are so many instances I can personally recall where a climber makes a bad decision- even unclipping there main line due to pressure that they could not deal with leading to them making these poor decisions- I strongly believe that training & development is our route to increasing safety not this encumbering bandaid of another rope system. Hope that make better sense Paul & sorry for the rant, but I have been working with poorly trained climbers making treework look dangerous.

I have heard that this two rope system has already been introduced within utility work. I see this as the real driving force behind the HSE's push to roll it out. As some overzelous health and safety officials have already deemed it necessary and have introduced the standard and relevant training as an example, why would the HSE believe that it is not viable in any other part of the industry? Whoever rolled it out within utility Arb is the real source of this problem - it was probably introduced to counter a poor skill base and lack of experience within the workforce. On a secondary point, I looked at the climbers the demonstrated the systems to the HSE and they were from the top 1% of the industry and could make moving around a tree with any system effortless- the HSE needs to watch a climber of a couple of years, in basic kit stumbling his way around a street tree with two ropes. He would be sweating, swearing and constantly nervous that one of his crew is going to put the tail end of either of his climbing lines through the chipper. Reality is often very different to what people expect.

Terrifying but true The industry needs to educate climbers to minimise loading on these compromised trees.