Pete Mctree

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If these recommendations are adopted, the LANTRA scheme will be out of date I am sure.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

Sorry, but I don’t get your answer to my post - a lot of ash trees are knackered here too - some from the drought last year - others from charalia - people were saying that some trees were “recovering” and I queried what from.

How many of these trees that are recovering, are coming back from drought induced stress and not Chalara?

I agree with you & the limitations of a 5 day course. It however does not aim to produce a skilled individual in that timeframe. ps I deleted my post as I thought i asked a poor question with limited answers

deleted

The discussion itself is a step in the right direction. We appear to have a widening gap between what the trainers & training providers are delivering and what the industry wants. However, is almost the perfect conundrum. How often do we read here on the forum that training costs are extortionate and others bitterly complaining that the standard produced is not adequate. There is always a cost in training & we need to decide where & when to pay it. It can be given to the trainers who can then deliver far more comprehension tuition to a higher standard, potentially with evidence based progression and assessed levels of achievement, but at what cost & over what duration? Another option is to have brief, basic tuition as we have now & the onus is then upon the employer to train & further educate the individual in work time and at the cost of production. This latter method does not seem to be working as people are complaining about the level of proficiency & the cost too - I guess everyone wants there cake and eat it! A third way might be the introduction of a higher tier of training and assessment on top our current one - based on excellence as opposed to competence - but this in itself would create uproar, as people would have to spend more time & money on things that they think they do not need or want. I think as an industry we should think very carefully about what we want, or we could end up being overburdened with training, costs & legislation.

I have had similar on wading boots & they were OK - not sure if the system will interfere with the lower straps on spikes though.

I often have wondered if button flies were the way forward for chainsaw trousers - less zip issues

Bamboo is not a good choice. The chemical processes involved in turning it into a fabric are not in anyway environmentally sound. Is Bamboo Fabric Really Eco-Friendly? - Swedbrand Group WWW.SWEDBRAND-GROUP.COM For years, bamboo has been touted as being one of the most environmentally-friendly fabrics on the market. Bamboo is... Environmental Impacts of Fabric: Bamboo WEARNOTHINGNEW.TYPEPAD.COM Bamboo is to yuppies as hemp is to hippies. Bamboo is the hot new "eco-friendly" fiber. The bamboo stalk is broken...

For the GRCS to be anything more than an expensive bollard, you need the experience & knowledge on how to use it & the grounds man with a similar skill set. You need to assess your needs prior to making a choice

So potentially causing the mistrial of a gang of predatory paedos is all good in your books Vespasian? I am not surprised by you sadly

He can’t go to prison- that would be racist ?

My favourite Glastonbury was 1994 - remember some of it ?

Makes good sense Bob. I could charge strong money if I wanted and on some jobs get it. However the number of those jobs are few and far between locally & I probably would end up sitting at home a lot as I would have priced myself out of a lot of the other work. Set your rate on workload & not just the "I want" figure.

Brilliant!

It would indeed be impressive if I could take a selfie from there. To be honest there are no pictures of me doing treework I have taken.

With my wine enhanced vision it looked like the real thing ? All good though as it is always a fun to have a competition ?

Me too - never was good at reading the small print