Pete Mctree

Training provides a start point in your skill base,  that is all. 

Thanks Paul, do you know if there will be a chance for a review of the new guidelines as they are again radically different to the current ICoP. 

 Nice - well composed vid.

So people only ever cut themselves cutting & holding then? Sorry, but I find your opinion myopic & unrealistic 

1 hour ago, Jamie said:

Tom, you have hit the nail on the head, those are my thoughts exactly.

A few points, not all rope firms are IRATA members and don't have to follow IRATA guides. They frequently use IRATA trained techs but don't always have level 3s.

 

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.

33 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Do you really mean that you are against the mandatory/enforced two rope SRT system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA.  

 

If so, just come out and admit it.

 

Continuing to appear to spread disinformation does little to add weight to you arguments.

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.

8 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 

Seems at bit harsh, especially when you consider it’s been in place since 1998 ( longer than many of the recent dissenters have been climbing).

 

Surely the problem is the recent reinterpretation made by a handful of people attending a climbing demo?

 

 

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 ?

1 hour ago, htb said:

Forgive me for being stupid. If both your ropes need independent anchors, if you've stripped a single stemed conifer such as a spruce for arguments sake, topped it and then start sectioning down. Both your lines are attached to separate bridges of an approved harness what defines an independent anchor in this case as both your lines will be round the stem and be all of 1-2" apart vertically, that's hardly independent.

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.

9 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Just scraped this off a FB post, not fact checked but appears plausible - and certainly fits my opinion of the general mismanagement and abuse inherent in public services - so I’ll float it and wait see if there is a credible challenge:

 

How ill are you? Some more than others, but we need to have a serious think. 

In 2015, some 7,300,000 prescriptions were written for ibuprofen, racking up a bill for £27,000,000 - a cost of £3.74 per lot compared to 25p a box from the high street.

In total, prescribing four common painkillers - including paracetamol, ibuprofen, aspirin and codeine phosphate - cost the NHS £161,500,000 in 2015. This is the equivalent of up to 19,000 heart bypass operations, or 30,000 mastectomy ops

That would be an easy problem to solve - quit prescribing cheap over the counter drugs!

Let's be honest, the NHS is being run down, dismantled & sold off, like the railways etc were.  I looked on the gov.uk tender site the other week and there were approximately 30 million pounds of NHS contracts up for bids including those directly relating to patient treatment.

Soon it will be so poorly underfunded that it will barely function and people will start getting private medical insurance if they can afford it. It will reach a point when the government will "sadly" say that they are going to have to privatise it as it is so underperforming that it is no longer viable. People will accept it as the alternative will look so much better. Then we will find out how expensive medicine can be!

(sorry for the rant, but I can see it happening already) 

I see many benefits of the asap as a way  of providing a backup, but I also have two worries about it's introduction.Firstly is the wearing of full body class 3 harnesses as they should be attached to dorsal or sternal points (I think) and the second is the increased complexity of rescue and self rescue with a cut primary line. We need to have a close look at the rescue issue, because if staff are not competent & versed in it's use, it could potentially create a significant problem.

17 minutes ago, Matthew Storrs said:

I honestly can’t see why they couldn’t charge a small fee for say a visit to A&E and GP. I’m sure if people were having to pay £10-15 for each visit it’d cut out the time wasters, raise a little extra capital and frankly if you can’t justify spending that for the sake of your health then perhaps it’s natural selection at work!

Sadly there are people so poor that this would be an obstacle to them getting appropriate treatment 

We have been sold down the river a while ago I think Craig. I really do not believe that the AA are acting in our best interest by showing any support for this - they either cannot truly understand this or perhaps do not care as they are writing the iCOP! 
If they had the health of the industry in mind they would refuse to accept & endorse this farcical legislation 

20 minutes ago, Jamie Jones said:

I am sorry but I am not thick enough to need retraining every three years. If training companies want to do training on updated regulation aspects when there is big changes like what is being proposed then I would take advantage of that.

But in the last year in have had to go from competent to qualified for many aspects of my business I now have over 20x NPTC City & Guilds qualifications. If I had to renew them at cost inc VAT every three years this would cost me over £ 8,000 and take out 3x months of working days.  Sorry but this is unfeasable when self employed.

Lets be clear I don't  forget how to use a back pack blower, a walk behind mower, a ride on mower, a chipper, a chainsaw etc. If you are struggling and have the money to burn, or your forgetful then please feel free to redo all your tickets especially if you are paying for them.

I don't mind redoing First Aid as new stuff is always coming out and the more practice you have the better as you don't actually practice this in any way unless there is an incident.

Also on a cost basis it might be easier to add these costs and loss of earning if you are in affluent areas with minimal competition. But for those of us who are not price is always a major issue and many people simply can't afford this.

 

Irrespective of what you think, even in Arb you are supposed to do refresher training every 5 years ( one for ground units & one areial).

Many ignore it, but it is a requirement