Rich Rule

I just assumed the server had had one tequila too many. Steve when you press condense posts, it sits and thinks for a bit then stays in the expanded mode.

I have been wondering about this and the more I think about it the more I get annoyed at the unnecessary revenue that will be lost /created by having to retrain. I have climbed SRT for quite a few years now, probably 95% of the time. The trainers I have seen, the refresher course I did 3 years ago and the 4 Arb Association Approved contractor assessors barely knew about SRT. Granted, a retired old school climber/come trainer can easily adapt to teach a Prussic to a Hitch Climber for example, but how can they be expected to teach a commercial level of SRT climbing and then add another system into the mix. There were two such characters dressed like Harlequins at the APF Last Year. Apparently, they are now amongst the forerunners of the twin rope SRT training. How can that be so? In the past, teachers had earned their craft and passed on the skills to the students. Twin SRT is so new, how can they suddenly be an expert, when I very much doubt they climb commercially anymore, fullstop!

I was lucky, I bought a copy about 12 years ago, used in amazon. It came to just under 15 quid, delivery from the states included. I expected a soft back and a hardback appeared. I must have been just lucky as they are quite a price these days.

I must have been mistaken when I read your comment then.

I am not going to speak for Scotspine as he is more than capable himself. The way I see it and how things were originally explained, initially we were told that there needs to be 2 systems in place suitable to descend to the floor at any point in the climb. Regardless of whether a rope is tied and static or running over a branch and moving, it is still only one rope. Now the ICOP has been drafted (I haven’t read it and don't really intend to as quite frankly it is absurd and it won’t have an effect in how I work day to day) you state that MRT says you don’t need to have a rope suitable to descend in one pitch. Whereas, climbing with a rope in a static configuration, base tie, tip tie, whatever, requires it to be able to reach the floor. I read this to say that the guidelines have been written by people not really grasping the concepts of tree climbing and the systems we use. They have looked at another industry and thought to adopt those techniques a rewrite the ICOP to incorporate these protocols. It further illustrates the inconsistencies and shows that the writers and enforcers of such rules are differentiating between two systems and seeing them as different. When in reality, whether the rope is doubled or single... you cut it, you are going down. So why should the rules for the second system be different when the outcome will be the same? The whole debacle is absurd. Training is key IMO.

@Bolt Having read through this and other threads. Why do you keep accusing people of having hidden agendas? Twice I have seen it now. Neither, Jake nor Scotpine have a foot in the training Industry. They are just working arbs trying to find a way through a set of badly defined and written guidelines to enable them to see a way forward. The way you keeping referencing MRT it is almost as if you have a hidden agenda or something? i would guess you are just a working arb trying to find a way through a set of badly defined and written guidelines to enable you to see a way forward.

Yes, it matters? or Yes, you are based in Portugal? Either way, as ridiculous as the new guidelines are I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

I read this today and it definitely has some interesting points. Food for thought. Man-Made "Climate Change" Hoax | NWOrdered WWW.NEWWORLDORDERED.CO.UK

Surely it shouldn’t matter? You are based in Portugal, correct?

I know. Certainly doesn’t help when the person on the other end of the phone is a brain dead millennial who can barely read the script, let alone understand common sense and reason.

I feared it and took precautions. I photocopied my old license. I called them and they assured me all my entitlements would remain. i even took a screen shot of the DVLA website showing which entitlements I had. It came back with the towing restrictions. I raised it with their team, supervisor and then a final escalation, a letter advised from a transport consultant to the Chief Exec. Everytime, they just replied they had no record of me every sitting a trailer test or HGV. Even though Inprovided them with full evidence, I explained the grandfather rights, their response was that after 97 it was blah blah blah. I asked them to look at the entitlements from when I actually passed my test in January 92. it was like talking a to a brick wall... same response. The only other thing left to do was to raise it with The Ombudsman IIRC. Nothing was going to change their decision, they were real arseholes. It wasn’t like I could go to their competitor now was it? Then I moved country.

Warren, where do you work mate? I see your based in Maidstone, Kent. I know a few firms in that area.

It would have either crushed his pelvis, ripped him in two or snapped the other anchor out and insult to injury a second top lands on him when he eventually hits the deck.

Here is an example of double SRT from a guy in the US. It doesn't look too bad in this scenario. He ascends on the one anchor point and two ropes. He isn't in a tight, multiple times reduced, plane tree in South London though. Also, he isn't using CE marked equipment, so don't go copying or the HSE and tree police will be after you.

That is exactly what happened to me about 5 years ago. Luckily I was only 10 foot in the air or something when the anchor (60+ foot) failed. I never bounce test with two men.

Thanks for that Paul. A number of years ago a good friend of mine had a serious fall and broke several bones, pelvis, ribs leg/ankle. He was airlifted to hospital. I was contracting elsewhere but got a call later that day. I went to site and had to sort the mess out after the investigators had arrived and police had closed the area off. All his kit was taken away for investigation. I was told afterwards that there would not be taking it further as he was the director of the company. Yet, had a employee had a similar accident they would have been grounds for prosecution. I must add, that the two suits from the HSE who were responsible for the investigation didn’t have a background in treework and didn’t really have a grasp of what was going on and what had happened.

This is a question for Paul or HSE reading this ... I have heard in the past that if an Employer sends out an employee with inadequate kit, no LOLER etc and there is an accident. If the HSE get involved then the employer can be prosecuted. However, if the same employer has the same accident with the same Kit they would be exempt from prosecution by the HSE as they are the director of the company. Will this be the same situation if a director investigated by the HSE for not following the new guidelines?

Found this today whilst avoiding paperwork and accounts. It covers a lot of the basic, but you see so many issues crop up with the wrong choice of tie off or choice or rigging points and redirects. Someone must find it useful...

Eggs. Those holes in the Crocs are where a grown, Croc wearing man’s dignity escapes from. Personally I wear these. They are called Lester or Norwegian House socks. It isn’t the beginning of the end or even the end of the beginning for me. They aren’t technically slippers so I am still Peter Pan!

Ouch. What actual happened?

Sadist.

Continued training is there mate. I agree pretty much with what you say apart from the validity of the quals you did in 2000. You are supposed to do refresher training or up training every 5 years. AfAIK they are still valid but if you have an accident or are going for some larger contracts evidence of refresher training is required.