Marc

Hi Ben, I called the other day to discuss just this could you expand on these points or anyone here care to discuss. The ICOP seems to completely screw over the SRT user with some frankly unfair logic. My interpretation of 2.9:- 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, it’s still one rope/system, both systems are used to access and achieve work positioning. 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 (unless some form of load sharing anchor device #rare)-this anchor point 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 with SRT. 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 5 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 for MRT thereby making the need to have a suitable second line perhaps greater as backed up by HSE reports into falls in arboricultural aerial operations.

Green cards don’t cut it now for some of the big boys out there. if a green card is accepted then I find I am wasting my time quoting as they’ll give it to the lowest bidder which is fine. we only use self employed labourers and have paid for all to have Blue cards. This has entailed doing the touch screen test, attending a one day Rolo course and ensuring that ground based and aerial tickets are within 5 years (not all mind just one or two to prove cpd) i personally think it’s a good thing, the major players do not know our industry so to achieve a CSCS arborist Card demonstrates a certain level of competence. And I find with those clients they expect a level of compliance over and above and appreciate the cost involved, which some don’t. For some of our civil engineering clients we will be charging approximately double our usual rate, now you may think you are coining it in, but consider the investment required to even set foot on site and maintain that level. If the playing field is level then it’s fine. if not as in those that accept green cards then of course it’s bullshit and diminishes the value of that scheme.

How do you mean? There is no suggestions here...

From my understanding they were implemented in 2005 and as of immediate effect we are to be climbing on a two rope system as default. We are effectively in breach of the regulations. We are amending our RA’s and looking to ensure our team always give consideration to two rope climbing, being that most of them have or do work outside of the UK it will be difficult to implement as understandable attitudes are that one rope climbing as default is considered safe and the current hierarchy for them once aerial work is to be undertaken is can i climb with one rope if yes carry on, if not will a second line allow me to achieve safe work positioning if yes carry on. If no go back to the beginning and look for a safe alternative solution. I could see no problem with the current industry practice that has been taught at grass roots level for years.

Yeah, my point was the innovation that was climber driven, the homemade devices/pulley savers etc. Market places opened up through ordering from the states. it saddens me that I have to stifle the culture of innovation that drives efficiency and safety in the work place from intelligent proficient arborists. But alas if you want to comply to regulations there is no place for that. System configuration is key all parts certified and appropriate to intended use. Which is not a big problem as there now is so much good equipment available. Yet I still see those using as I did equipment from other sectors and trying to hash it into their day to day systems, only now as the responsible person I have to say no! Even though the equipment is highly suitable for the intended task, perhaps even offering advantages over off the shelf kit. The fact is we now have to implement two rope working, it’s a ridiculous position, we will be the only country I’m aware in the world who will operate this way. And there in lies the problem with health and safety it doesn’t always advance us for the better and can be a backward step. So let’s see what happens if it can prevent some fatalities then that can only be a good thing, however it unnecessarily places those proficient at their job and able to not fall out of trees at a great level complexity they just did not need. At the end of the day I just can’t help but feel this whole thing is flawed, greater complexity and more restrictions are not what is required, just more robust training and professionalism in the industry.

Probably shouldn’t say it, but having walked the APF and talked to some suppliers of Arb trucks there it is well known that the builds they are supplying are at capacity before they even have a load and these are being supplied to large outfits. So essentially they are sending their guys out of the yard overloaded once a team and kit are on board. We are looking at 7.5t vehicles at present they too have next to no payload, the dealers are all to happy to spec something unsuitable, even suggesting airbags or extra leaf springs so they don’t look overloaded. Sometimes I wonder why bother to try and work within the spirit of the law...

This is another point and issue which reflects tree work, the rope runner is of course very suitable for its application only it will never achieve CE approval. There are currently a multitude of devices out there such as bulldog bone, akimbo, HH etc. None of which will ever reach CE approval as the standards are just not adequate for tree work. Even now it appears the RW CE is under review. It just feels the current guidelines, testing standards, PPE requirements and training standards no longer reflect the Arb industry. i enjoyed what felt like the hey day, where I could configure my equipment and build bespoke climbing systems for my needs, no two climbers where ever the same. Our ropes even come in a multitude of diameter, construction and colours, work positioning harness are plentiful especially if you take into account harnesses from other continents not currently available here. As an industry I am curious how many arborist there are compared to rope access technicians. From what I know of industrial access technicians their training is more in depth, and the equipment and techniques almost identical. I doubt you will find the multitude of colourful equipment and endless configurations as you do in the Arb sector. Jake this is my point you use non CE approved equipment, from your main climbing system you could argue to even your second system, and you mention using an ASAP that I doubt you or anyone on site has any specific training to use. The added complexities of two rope working in the Arb sector I just feel cannot be reasonably overcome, not any time soon.

There is enough guidance in the PPE regs and LOLER on equipment selection. and no offence to Jake who is a competent climber I would just like to climb with him and see how he can implement two rope working into everyday working scenarios and as to why two ropes is a safer method? what ever way you look at it we are to blame for what is to come so we just need to improve how we operate and show the HSE that we are professional and that our methods of working are safe and appropriate.

Can I ask what’s the point in confirming to WAH regs if straight away you are using equipment that is not fit for purpose? equipment compatibility and conformity is equally important in the WAH hierarchy and PPE in work equipment regs. i applaud your enthusiasm but we need to be opposing this as it is blatantly not workable to continue to enforce industrial regs upon our industry.

You’d be hard pushed to do it legally but when does that matter with ag ?

I don’t have all the answers, all I can say is we have to ignore how everyone else operates and do what’s right for us. I am in a privileged position my job is purely to price works, look at equipment investment and ensure I have the skilled staff to carry out the works I price, what I have found seems so logical to me yet to others it doesn’t. I have found if I pay more for kit and more for staff I can be cheaper than my competition and make more money, part of that is now due to we can compete on works out of reach of the less committed “do as you like” companies out there. The downside is I need volume of work to keep going and it becomes a huge issue of plate spinning, but that’s pretty much my job now for my MD, truth be told I reckon I am earning as much as him now and I can tell you that I pay some climbers more than me. But they will come and go, and I hopefully will remain as will the company I work for with a pension, and in time perhaps a stake in things. perspective needs to be in place. I also respect all those companies that compete against us we will always lose a few jobs to those that have fewer overheads and as long as they do good work I’m all for competitive environment, as all I want to see driving around is good tree care so thumbs up to all those that have a passion for it and continue to educate themselves.

Pay well, What does that mean, I bought it up on another Arb based discussion, when I in a roundabout way suggested a level of pay the replies were I thought surprising, most seemed aghast at the thought of paying their staff more than they earn or so well for little responsibility. This concerned me, you owners are coming at this wrong, remember your business and reputation is built upon your staff, they will never own the asset that is your business but will be part of that asset, your pay may seemingly be less your efforts may seemingly be more in time spent stressing, but at the end of the day the business is ultimately yours so make them a part of it. I looked at arbjobs recently to get an idea of pay, and of those disclosing it offer 25-30k for experienced arbs with tickets are living in the past, and holding us back, imagine if the pay scale was £40-50k for a climbing arborist on the books would this attract more into our industry and a greater drive from them to be at the top of their game. or am I living in a dream world?

Regarding changover of anchor point on DdRT I never fell neither did the countless others I worked with, we were continuously tied in, my point was more along the lines of the increased risk associated with DdRT even if extremely low, this risk is often eliminated with SRTWP once final tie in point has been reached there is no reason to unclip from your system from the entirety of the climb unlike DdRT where good positioning and desirable rope angles is not possible from a single anchor point. Where as SRTWP it is possible to make any point within the tree another anchor point often load sharing reducing strain and possibility of anchor point failure being reduced. To be completely honest, I was one of the biggest sceptics to start with when it comes to using SRTWP as an everyday work positioning system, now I’m of the opinion why is this not the standard go to choice when working the crown of a tree, the increase in safety, flexibility and ergonomic gain are hard to ignore. We need to promote the standardisation of SRTWP and crown access into the work place not imposing greater restrictions.

I’m some scenarios I believe two rope working is possible to be employed effectively. However the complexities of working with 3 dimensional organic structures with varying levels of tree morphology makes employing two rope working at crown extremities unduly complex, complexity doesn’t increase safety. If we are going to make this a matter of justification in our risk assessments then you are already making the use of one rope acceptable in all situations, unless the competent arborist makes the dynamic risk assessment during the climb and sees the advantage to his worm positioning that a second line would provide. Also you cannot define what we call a moving rope systems (DdRT) or a stationary rope system (SRTWP) as either work positioning or rope access. Both systems utilise one rope, you could argue that a moving rope system (DdRT) only provides the ability to have one anchor point where as stationary a number of back-ups can be employed whilst working the canopy. When working DdRT I often had to reanchor during the climb this seas on average two times during a single climb, this meant making an anchor point change over during the climb, something I now avoid with SRTWP. also adding two ropes as a standard operating procedure will increase the complexities of aerial rescue in a tree work environment, having to find two anchors to provide a pick off rescue how would this be implemented? i understand the thought process, tree workers only utilise one primary line adding a second as is found in rope access does seem on paper a simple solution to reduce falls from height. Although having worked in this industry for a number of years with a number of very talented arborist this is not the solution, we need the ability to work crowns safely and smoothly a single primary allows us greater freedom of movement, more ergonomic efficiency and reduced complexity. More training and guidance is required as from my experience with accidents in arboriculture particularly falls it is complacency, inexperience and user error that are the root causes of accidents adding a second system is a short sighted solution fraught with issues.

What I’m most interested in is how we can implement aerial rescue into this, the use of two anchors with two lots of rope to manage and install on a rescue would slow things down, but wait speed should not be an issue when it comes to safety? Again all of this is just thinking out loud until any guidance comes into practice we will continue as is. another point regarding utilities it could be argued that utilities operate differently from commercial arborist and may not always be presented with the access challenges we face on a regular basis so it is something that can be made a standard operating procedure.

This is why we will have to wait for the next guidance and icop as I see no way we can work to that currently as we work in trees. as it stands it seems unworkable, those with time served industry experience can keep on saying it but the same reply comes back. I would be interested how Utilities are approaching this and meeting the above criteria and providing an increase in safety?

Some other questions To keep us all working to the same parameter I assume Dd'RT working will also be classified as rope access? The rest of my questions really comes down to how this will be implemented in the revised icop and TG as until then I am only talking out loud. Issues of how can we classify working with Stationary Rope Technique and class it as rope access yet use a work positioning harnesses? Two ropes also would require two separate attachments points on your harness to really be in the spirit of it otherwise whats the point? And if its two sperate points one would have to be fall arrest as using two work positioning systems... well i hope you see my point. Again these are all things to be cleared up in time when the new guidance comes out which will take years and hopefully in the meantime we can rehroup rethink and maybe have another democratic process and approach the HSE again and review as its clear this is unworkable, it was unworkable 12 years ago its still unworkable now. Or as its been said i'm to old and irrelevant now and need to roll over and let the new generation of climbers put this into practice.

Dragged myself back on here to grind my way through this reading, got to page 12 and skipped to pg33 so apologies if I missed some vital information but the first 12 pages seemed very repetitive. Anyway I have lots to add in time but first was curious about Lantra awards workbook that I now assume is scrapped as SRT is classed as rope access and not rope positioning? Will Lantra be working on a new workbook and be changing the aims and objectives to reflect the new HSE stance?

I brick myself at the top of twelves! hust goes to show the variation in opinion and approach. I for one would never have them in our yard.

Not used a set of ladders in over a decade so don’t see their relevance. what has been a game changer is tripods, we have a range of these now for pruning and hedge cutting.

I struggle to find good staff, not keep them. I think Vesspian has a point help your team/employees out, go away on breaks, pay for training, keep a reasonable work load as in don’t beast your guys day in day out. We don’t pay the best rates either, in fact I consistently earned more else where when I freelanced. But as a company we always had work, good work, at a reasonable pace and always pay promptly on time no matter what. I would like to pay more, even match what some of our guys get else where but it’s not going to happen until rates overall improve. On another note, when I did freelance sorry if any of you guys are on here, but to pay me considerably more than your core regulars and treat me like some hot shot climber buying me coffees and treats doesn’t go down well with the rest of your team. As a counter to that, those that think they deserve more but aren’t willing to apply themselves unless they get it... you got that wrong too.

Me to Steve, I’ve got 3 with 4 zing it’s (one cube has double bottom) whole bunch off mostly 8 oz Weaver bags, given up on the Rockets years ago they only last a matter of months and 2 throwpods. Never used a big shot.. there are a couple kicking around the yard that the lads use I just prefer by hand. the biggest pain is breaking in new zing it..

@Glenn321 you cant go wrong with a bit of Americana unless it’s a Vermeer which can be fragile, the Carlton’s Morbarks and especially Bandits are robust machines that are simple to keep going if you have a semi decent understanding of how they work. And as you state you own a Landrover your obviously a dab hand with the spanner’s. I’d go for it over a Forst or European chipper. We do run Timberwolfs and Firsts to just because they are light but also what I’d class as disposable. A good American machine will give a good service life in my humble opinion.

Well that beat rummaging around in the leaf litter or cutting a branch. There are many soloutions I just prefer something I can tie in a field to a truck without having to find a branch.

Just because it so inelegant and lazy, and I have to rummage around for that perfect stick, so many times I’ve had the stick either snap or become jammed itself requiring serious work to free up. So I learned to tie knots that simply don’t jam. this is a nice quick easy one a lot are a variation of the truckers/Carter’s hitch which is also and invaluable knot to know.