Marc

No one said the fall or the significance of it is bull shit or none sense, that fact is not being disputed or questioned. It is the equipment failure that is in question and the lack of facts or understanding of the failure, this is why the safety culture is so woeful. 2 months after the event i'd expect an accurate safety alert, I don't apologise for being so blunt in this regard because as you rightly point out we must do better!

2018 model, I do not think they ever called the revision a mk3 so technically a mk2 with beefier top links.

I'm sorry but a report titled "HSE ALERT - High Potential - Equipment failure/Fall from height" That grabs my attention, this also happened on the 10th of December so some time ago the initial actions are to remove all ZigZag prussiks from use and the failed item has been sent to Petzl for testing. Then the more you read into the underlying causes, where apparently the cam in the photo is spring loaded to hold it in the up position it suddenly becomes unclear what has occurred. I am the responsible person in my work place, I take these reports very seriously, the only way we will ever improve is to voice our opinions and discuss even when unpopular, I voiced mine and have made it clear i'll disregard the report until further more accurate information is available to me. My opinion is this only weakens our credibility and is damaging to Petzl, I would go further but I will wait. I do struggle sometimes with how we are seemingly not encourage to question that which is put in front of us, I am happy to be put in my place if I am wrong, its how I learn,,, story of my life

It is worrying though the lack of clarity, the technical inaccuracies. In fact I’m so confused I’ve literally disregarded it as none sense. Should reports like this not be written by those who are familiar with the kit? Sorry if I sound harsh

It concerns me that a report such as this written so poorly... In the first pic it appear clear that the top link is not sprung as it appears collapsed against the top cam/friction bar. Again find it hard to imagine a free fall from this. Wouldn’t of happened with SRT!

There isn’t only the top link which aids the device to engage, can only assume this is what they meant. I find it hard to imagine a free fall scenario from a failed spring.

What say did we have over spending 100billion? Sorry 150billion

We are complying though, and as you say you agree, twin rope is not a good mandatory stand point and should only be used if required, so for those Snapshot moments where two systems would beneficial it looks good.

I’m still not seeing a benefit and a still shot does not make a working week. sorry @BenR ? it’s more complexity to what was and is a simple and safe way of operating using a single line securely attached and operated.

Seems about right most guys are getting about two to three years before servicing is required (Bridges yearly) and retired after 5. For me there is still no better harness on the market, I’d like to try the new Petzl and Simarghu though. or a Monkey Beaver.... only that doesn’t conform to European regs...

@AA Teccie (Paul) So if the overwhelming response is finding that the two rope working is not practical will the ICOP be revised to show this, or was the consultation for no reason? Would you be able to share the level of response and the percentage of those that felt two rope working is a workable new standard? Two ropes is simply not an achievable standard work method, not unless you significantly raise the overall standards of training and practical experience in the industry, and even then the predominant anchor point would have to be one but with two ropes. There has been no research/demonstration of how this can be practically applied other than that initially carried out by the HSE which is still relevant. We have been taught for decades on one rope, undergone training and judged competent on one rope , my entire company is based on those trained and proficient using one rope, I understand what is going on and still desperately cling to the hope that our voice will speak up. We will now be put at a commercial disadvantage and frankly to say tough just deal with it, is very unfair. I am one of 3 local AAAC approved contractors, there are another 15 local outfits who are not part of the AA many of whom are not on this forum, or have no care for compliance, standards or meeting the revised ICOP, they just quietly, efficiently and safely get on with their work. I cannot believe that overwhelmingly contractors are happy with this, but if they are i'll tow the line and see what happens. Otherwise we will continue to quietly, safely, efficiently and to a high standard continue our work.

Thinning can increase transpiration and lead to further stress, with no real benefit. Keeping the density of leaves will in my opinion help to dissipate load and prevent failure. often after wind events it’s the large old trees that survive.

Indeed, and we have absolutely no say in this... Just how the icop can be worded better. The AA rep is named in the HSE report from 16 years ago,,,

Hi Jamie hows you? im interested in how you went about incorporating the ASAP into your canopy work positioning system? Particularly how it was anchored, rope type, and your thoughts on the user instructions with rope deflection and no debris or detritus particularly leaves to enter the ASAP? I would of thought this alone would prohibit its use in the crown. Also it is a fall arrest device typically in Arb we work position with fall protection systems. Just curious how you come about your standard operating procedures for tree work from an irata approach?