Pete Mctree
-
Posts
5,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by Pete Mctree
-
I can Matty. you bring some good points & ideas to the table Daniel- this is not one of them. Education starts with a strong foundation & subsequently expands from that. You are suggesting that niche techniques are taught as standard (especially when you consider the limited mewp usage here in the UK). I do not see this as progressive or beneficial.
-
I have yet to meet anyone who is for this & apart from those involved in the construction I doubt I ever will.
-
Nothing so far has invalidated previous training as current methods are being recommended in tandem.
-
Trouser manufactures , please design a better solution
Pete Mctree replied to Treerover's topic in Climbers talk
This happens when you clip the saw high - be below your boots otherwise -
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
-
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 ☹️
- 91 replies
-
- 15
-
-
Which do you use... Base Anchor or Canopy Anchor
Pete Mctree replied to Treespasser's topic in SRT (Single Rope Technique)
Base for ascent. I ALWAYS switch to a canopy anchor for working. -
Background to the HSE decision on two rope working
Pete Mctree replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Training & education
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 ! -
Background to the HSE decision on two rope working
Pete Mctree replied to kevinjohnsonmbe's topic in Training & education
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.
-
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)
