Marc

@MattyF Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at...

They don’t have any choice though do they... Literally having their arms twisted by HSE and the general low standards in the industry have lead to this. As with a lot of H&S rather than increase standards just add more protection...

I would say they are well versed with the industry they are tasked to guide. They just have to implement it...

I have done, But you are not listening, neither are those who wrote it, how did the icop end up in its current state differentiating SRT as rope access and MRT as work positioning with differing levels of risk applied. Because WAH regulation says it must, and someone from the HSE has said it is. So how are those drafting it meant to go against WAH regs and the HSE? Even if they fundamentally don’t believe it themselves? I am not hopeful of a rethink, I do hope the guidance will be made clear and fair.

Yes, I would say the overall standards in the industry are very low, hence why the similarities to irata are not really there as the standards as whole are higher.

That is what you read here, but not the case with the minority of professional climbing arborists.

You sure? I see a lot of industrial access workers on one line/work restraint/positioning systems. Also the second line is just a follow, with one primary working line. This is fall protection, how often do primary’s fail in which case self rescue isn’t possible. I’d hazard remarkably low. its the idea that a fall is expected I disagree with.

Thanks for the clarification, It still doesn't explain, why in the ICOP there is a difference between MRT and SRT work positioning systems, both allow us to achieve the same overall aim, both entail the same level of risk and competency, actually i'd argue SRT entails a much lower risk with many benefits over MRT. The reality is both are the same and should be considered equal in terms of application if that makes sense.

No experienced climbers don't fall out of trees, what ever would make you say this? Its almost like saying even experienced rope access professionals will occasionally fall off the side of a building and generally fuck up from time to time. It should not happen period, and it does not happen when you are working to a high standard.

Actually I only just really looked at this. i really need to sit down and digest it in more detail, as I am truly fixated on one point at the moment 2.9 In the pic it’s saying fall protection system? Is this a good term for work positioning systems? After all, we are not looking to take any fall, it’s always been my understanding and the way I’ve carried out aerial operations is to never be in a position where a fall can occur as the equipment namely a work positioning harness and semi-static rope is not designed to be subject to any type of fall. Describing tree work as rope access with fall protection doesn’t sit well with me, we are a little more niche than that. Or maybe I am being pedantic.

That is my interpretation of it too, it doesn’t clearly state what the back requirement is, just that one is required I’ve heard the back up can simply be a lanyard. This is the issue with here say, it really needs to be clearly defined as simply as possible. I do not understand why there is a distinction between two work positioning systems, sure a brief explanation of the difference should be included. Other than that there should be no difference between the two in terms of risk and application. Why is SRT consider rope access and MRT is not? Both provide a means of crown access. SRT is only more efficient. Describing SRT as Rope Access is a slippery slope, as we cannot adhere to this definition in arboriculture and working in tree crowns.

I seriously doubt anyone had the intelligence to dream up a revenue from this, it is simply poorly considered

I am merely pointing out where this comes from. Read into that what you will. People will gloss over that and the welfare part, they already do, to often as a climber I have worked without any welfare provisions (that’s what the chips for isn’t it?) and no shut down or shrouding of live wires just told to get on with it. This is my point unless you enforce a safe working environment this is all just guidance, let’s make it fair though. I could go on, for me I am a climber and climbing is my trade, so I concentrate on this point alone and not the other parts around it, I’ll leave that more to others. Isn’t GS9 guidance anyway? If we “identify a risk” should we not act on it? As a manager of climbing operations I can honestly say if a electrical hazard is Identified I deal with it. And I only do this, as to often I was personally sent to do shady shit.

This is standard procedure, and is covered in GS6, the author is guided by that. Even low voltage aerial bundled cable (ABC) with an outer coating of plastic must be treated as if it’s not insulated and high voltage as there is a possibility of surge. Anyway beside the point as you can’t go against HSE guidance... Do you start to see?

Ok it may be an oddity yet is a serious consideration, just because the works are aerial doesn’t mean welfare should not be a consideration. i admire those companies with the fore thought to be running welfare Vans in their day to day ops. That oddity aside, the hierarchy a d distinctions is what concerns me most, as welfare is easily addressed, two rope not so easily. i have no chance of enforcing two rope working when the majority of my team are well ahead of the curve. And yes we state where the shitter is on the SMP as a matter of course, if one is not available the one is arranged.

Other than I disagree with utilising two ropes for all but exceptional circumstances. if we are to use two ropes then it has to be applied logically and fairly. The definition between one rope and one rope is the same regardless of weather it is a loop with a static side and dynamic side, or completely a static rope system. The phrase on 2.9.2 “”the system must incorporate a suitable back-up “” what does that actually mean? Is a lanyard a suitable back up, this is not clearly defined here, please clarify. Where as 2.9.3 clearly states “”When SRT is used, the system must comprise two independently anchored lines and may only utilise a single line where the use of the second line entails higher risk.6”” More on footnote 6 later As 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 both rely on a single rope to achieve work positioning and crown access then both should be treated as equal in the requirement to use two independently anchored lines (where possible, or both anchored at same point if not) and may only utilise a single line where the use of the second line entails higher risk. In fact 2.9.2 due to being a dynamic loop requires a form of anchoring device-friction/pulley saver, and due to the system being a moving rope system only one effective anchor can be achieved-this anchor needs to be suitably strong. Where as 2.9.3 (SRT)being a stationary rope system multiple anchors can be used to load share and achieve a more suitable work position/more favourable rope angles when working at crown extremities. Climbing on 2.9.2 requires the anchor point to be moved multiple times during a climbing day there by increasing the risk during multiple aerial changes overs to achieve a more favourable anchor point so as to lower rope angles whilst working at the crown extremities. Again this point makes utilising 2.9.3-SRT a more favourable and safer system as you are able to create new anchor points without having to change over or unclip from the system there by changing rope angles is a safer process. Footnotes 5 and 6 I see no reason why the definition of risk is different due to the above points. In fact as is clearly demonstrated over the last ten years among active professional climbing arborists the use of SRT Systems significantly reduce the risk involved through no need to carry out aerial change over once initial anchor point is achieved, and the ability to load share through multiple anchors, and the ease of improving rope angles whilst working at crown extremities. The wording of the foot note implies that you can risk asses out the need for a back up whilst utilising 2.9.2 MRT Yet whilst utilising 2.9.3 SRT you must always use two independent lines and the only occasions where it can possibly be risk assessed out is during aerial rescue. This is an unfair bias as both systems utilise one rope, and as demonstrated above SRT has many advantages over MRT making it a safer option, therefore footnote 6 is irrelevant to SRT and has greater importance on MRT thereby making the need to have a suitable second line perhaps greater for MRT as backed up by HSE reports into falls in arboricultural aerial operations.

I don’t believe that, even if you may read into my feedback here that I am frustrated.

I have done for what little good it will do, I’ve already vented my views to the authors and was reassured and now this, it makes little sense, but then what choice is there? Unless you and the AA take this seriously and listen to those with the technical experience we will end up with the situation we are now in. I understand why, this is just my frustration that I feel we are not being represented fairly. I am forever hopefully this will turn into something positive in time.

Hi Paul, although the reality is those writing the documents even think this is a bad idea, but I’d the AA will roll over on this and not provide the support of its member the general working arborist what else can we do. My head hurts from hitting it against the wall, unless the icop can be written in a fair and just way for the working arborist then how am I as a manager going to enforce it amongst the team? It all feels rushed with little input from those who have the appropriate technical experience. I look forwards the the TG but the ICOP being as flawed as it is written by those who are having their arms bent behind their backs what are we to do honestly other than bent our frustration here?

Well it’s the law and apparently has been since 2005. You are right no one can force you, you will be in breach of the regulations. The issue as I see it, is the WAH regs are to broad and all encompassing, I feel we need to look at trying to have an exemption in Arb, but that’s to difficult, it’s easier to write new TG’s and ICOPs and say get on with it than actually change HSE regulations that you only find in the UK. Personally I blame Brussels ?

If you need to prevent pendulum swing or achieve stable positioning then yes lanyard too. the whole things is just abstract and weird. I have no idea how I am going to enforce this.

Well I thought the comps were about demonstrating industry skill. gear check has to be carried out in line with PPE regs, this includes climbing on CE approved equipment only, being an industrial event sponsored by AA I would expect two ropes to be mandatory... in line with icop

Nothing vague about Tony, with immediate effect you should be on two climbing ropes... Hope you are keeping well.

I am disappointed, obviously I’d prefer we remain as a single line standard, as it is in the rest of the world.

Danny have you read the current draft of the icop! There is as it stands no scope to bin off a second line with SRTWP, climbing on DdRT (MRT) there is scope to justify it through risk assessment... I suggest you make you thoughts on this known.