Pete Mctree

agreed, especially with regards to kit supply & training also. For once though I have to stick up for the Arb association- they have at least negotiated some common sense into the risk assessment. Shame they did not get there shit together years ago to quash all this.

It is still taught, but younger climbers don’t seem to use them as much. I have seen quite a few remove the canopy without & use them for the timber/stem. Can’t work it out myself

I was driving to the shops thinking of this earlier. I all of a sudden got really scared as I realised I only had a single seat belt on, one steering wheel & worst of all only one brake pedal !!!!! It is truly sad when a unique and proud industry is derailed by albeit a well meaning bunch of desk jockeys.

Bump ?

New ones are available HOME | anglia-vehicles-ltd WWW.ANGLIAVEHICLES.CO.UK

Could you please share the link. In a new thread would be good. Thank you

Pm me your address and I will post you a set next week- I don't have a treemotion now.

We are a small company based mid way between Whitby & Guisborough. We are in need of a self employed individual to work with us on a regular basis, to help with an increased workload. Pay is dependant upon upon productivity and qualifications Either call me on 07798 743573 or email [email protected]

I think there is some scope for further guidance in that case as this is going to be a huge issue imo.

Do you have any further details on this guidance? And is it relatable to dealing with hazard trees in general? i have already heard stories about rigging point failures where climbers have used rigging blocks & the resultant forces have ripped the tree apart. When I started in Arb, we were rigging out the last of the elm trees we used natural crotch rigging as there were few other options. This simple method helped massively reduce the forces generated at the rigging point. This has to be our end goal either through friction or load sharing redirects- either way we need to rapidly and radically reassess how we approach these rigging scenarios, as It is OK having all the toys, but a deficit in knowledge & or the skills to apply it will no doubt result in fatalities rigging out these hazard trees sooner or later.

A bandit is the most suitable replacement imo. I was working for an LA a few years ago that moved up from a 250 to a 12” bandit. The increase in productivity was impressive & I believe that they have had very little down time over the years too.

Are you really looking at the same footage ? I see an American saw builder testing his machine - do you really need to climb at tree to test a saw? Do you feel threatened by ported saws ? You seem to be overly negative about them with very little experience

I have 2 jackets. One is for 80% of the time it rains a bit when an ok breathable jacket will do. The other is a non breathable plastic jacket that keeps me dry in the worst conditions. I have spent a lot of money in the past trying to get a single jacket to do both. The nearest I got was a mountaineers style jacket, however the mud and dirt denatured the fabric eventually.

Yes

This entire thread is a part of a review and is viewed by the HSE as part of there decision making process on how to implement any changes they see fit. I will save any consideration on implementing it necessary (hopefully never)

I have put my opinions in bold within you text ?

Hi Jake, I commend you on your proactive approach to working with a twin rope systems, but your picture shows two issues potentially. Did both your climbing systems have independent structurally sound anchor points? As there looks to be very little divergence of the ropes. Secondly as there is a 2nd climber present, how did this affect anchor point selection and would the 4 independent anchor points even be possible? More importantly, you mention the use of a cam device as used in the IRATA world such as the ASAP. If your using such a device in a rope access configuration, have you and your staff had training to effect a rescue if your primary system fails? I think it would be classed as a long rope rescue & would be beyond the skill set of a lot of arbs currently. Someone may correct me on this, but I think you need to be a level ll IRATA operative to become a rescue climber even, with proven technical ability and catalogued hours. Have a look at the video

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