Tom D

We're just in the process of updating our RA to accommodate the changes. One thing is clear, as an employer I will not tell a climber whether he should use one or two lines in any given situation. Climbers have different styles and choose different equipment, it would be quite wrong for someone on the ground to tell an experienced climber how to perform a particular task. With trainees it would be different. Our new RA will allow for each climber to risk assess each tree he will climb and to justify why he is using one rope, if that's what he choses to do. He will sign the document and that will be that, his decision.   I'd loose too much sleep if I had the task of telling climbers how they should climb, imagine if something happened, I could be sued because I placed him in a more dangerous position. 

There will be caveats to this of course, but that will be the basic principle of our policy.

There are two main issues regarding this, you could argue that one of them is not the HSE"s problem. 

The first is a good solid practical one: That is that tree climbing and climbing man made structures are the same, or at least similar enough to warrant working to exactly the same regulations.  I do not believe that they are.

The second is that these new changes will be widely adopted throughout the industry. They won't be.

We have already discussed point 1 at length, there are so many situations in tree climbing that will never arise in a rope access situation. We can have these situations detailed in a robust ICOP .

Point two is a trickier one. The HSE can easily argue that it's not their problem, and to some extent they are correct.

IRATA companies rarely work for the general public, there are no IRATA door knockers or travellers, there are not even any IRATA corner cutters who will work cheaply. In fact they have an excellent professional reputation and a good safety record. I think that some in the HSE probably imagine that's how our industry will become. It won't unfortunately, not without some serious intervention on their part. If they could introduce legislation which made it clear that only 'approved' (by whom I don't know) companies could be used and that customers faced prosecution for using non 'approved' companies.

This is pie in the sky of course and will never happen. So we are left with the reality that those who choose to abide by the rules will be much slower and require more equipment, they will inevitably be more expensive. They will still be able to get work with commercial clients who take the rules seriously but the domestic market will be closed to them.

We may even end up with a two tier industry those who do domestic work and don't follow the regs and those who do commercial and do. This will be a very sad thing to see, and as has also been mentioned many times, if people break the rules once a precedent has been set, if you're going to not bother with two ropes, why bother with chainsaw PPE? No point getting LOLER if you're not compliant anyway..

The question they should be asking is would people obey the rules of the road if there were no police, no cameras, no dash cams? or would it just be a big free for all?  The fact that they only investigate accidents means that there is virtually zero incentive to follow these rules for many, (who goes out thinking they're going to have an accident) especially one man bands (something IRATA doesn't have either). If the HSE were driving around in unmarked cars turning up at domestic jobs at random and auditing firms on the job then this two rope thing would work. However thats not going to happen. It's going to be entirely optional.

Even at £380 a day you would hit the vat threshold before the 10th of Oct.

Jeeeeeeesus thats cheap!

So if you pay two staff 150 that leaves £80 for you, fuel, repairs and maintenance on a mog and all your kit, replacement ropes , ppe, insurance and everything else.  

I can only conclude that a)your wife / father is minted and this is just a hobby to you. Or

b) you have only been going a short time and will go bust the moment the mog breaks down. Or

c)you are laundering money for organised crime and don't need to make a profit.

You should be £800 a day for a mog and 3 men. Thats our MINIMUM for a mog and chipper and 3 men. over £1k if possible.

There are a few points to make here:

First; the ICOP is still in gestation and we have been promised a consultation on that before it gets published.

Second; the accident rate probably won't change because all the guys who were having accidents due to not following the old ICOP or due to incompetence still won't follow the new rules and will still be just as incompetent.

Third; the use of a second line will as many have pointed out make the job more dangerous in many situations. But for access there will be the two rope requirement. This will mean that chances are on most big tree jobs the climber will ascend on two ropes (*Clears throat*) and then unclip from one of them in order to begin reducing / dismantling. This will leave a pre-installed rescue line in the tree (so long as the climber has remembered to lower the prussic to the floor).

Having a pre-installed line in the tree will not be a bad thing.

I charge 1000 per day if I can,  but it depends on the job. That looks a mess John. I put a scaffold pole through mine the other day, one of the worst things was a lump of lead though.

Paul. 

Will there be any possibility for consultation on the ICOP? perhaps a draft published here? I have been pleased with the large number of sensible and well thought out replies on this thread, perhaps if we were able to give a draft the once over it wouldn't be a bad thing?

Cheers

I had my defender re-mapped years ago, it’s done well over 100k miles on the remap. I think the thing is with some of the cheaper systems it’s that they just turn up the pressure in the common rail. This will affect the spray pattern and burning character of the fuel and possibly cause problems. A proper re-map will open the injector for a fraction longer without altering the spray pattern.  I have a similar system on my valtra too...

How easily can you tune the engines back up to 35Hp?

Thats really cool,  I'll be looking for old bits and bobs to try now.

Thing is Mick, the whole woke thing only went crazy in the last 5 years or so.

bet it wouldn’t get on tv now.

I have brass eye on dvd, it’s still funny 20 years on. It was so ahead of its time. Four lions was also brilliant.

this one sounds good too.

Will do..

On 27/09/2019 at 06:24, John Shutler said:

i think you’ve over estimated the amount of chip you’ll produce and the final value per cubic metre of the woodchip. it’s not going to be particularly high value chip on account of all the fines from the smaller material. you could be £15 per cubic metre or less in my experience 

Totally agree, I’ve chipped a helluva lot of brash with the heizo and small diameter stuff and brash just doesn’t produce much chip. I can fill a  grain trailer, maybe 14 -16 cube in 20 mins with 10-14" diameter softwood logs. But it will take me an hour with brash.

Are you comparing Scottish with English wood? Or felled at different time of year?

I’m going to be selling a bandit 250 pto soon. Might be a bit big for you but it’s another league from the Forst.

Nice Reg! Why you blowing them up?

Dealing with dangerous trees? safety works? 

My dad had that scam before, he too became suspicious and didn't pay. His was for £90k I think!

I think that the AA have championed this cause in the best way they knew how. We might have done it differently, but I dont think they didn't try or colluded in any way.

I think that I will produce a document detailing all the concerns of the industry based on the discussions on here and then see if I can get some response from the HSE. 

Based on the responses on the consultation thread we ought to be able to come up with something pretty robust.

 I knew that Mark. It's crazy that all this is down to one guy at the HSE, I don't think that there was any panel.

Unfortunately the HSE looked at a list of accidents and decided that all these would have been prevented by a second line. It's hard to argue with that. We'll have to wait 10 years and see what the accident stats look like then. 

The problem is of course that 90% of the industry won't follow these rules and so we'll never see the true picture of what 2 rope working will do to the stats. 

The HSE were also made aware of the fact that this was playing not the hands of the non compliant and would likely penalise the compliant. They still pressed ahead.

The issue of friction with 2DDRT systems in a dense canopy is not to be underestimated. You could easily find yourself stuck if you had an injury. Plus if the rescuer has to bag in and tie in twice the time it takes to reach a casualty could be excessive. Which then raises the spectre of pre-installing TWO rescue lines. So now there are 4 lines in the tree plus a rigging line if required!

21 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Herein lies a part of the problem though Tom.

 

As you rightly say, MEWP has become the (AA sponsored) default preferred option over climbing.  I don't agree that this should be the case and I suspect this is a classic example of rules for the blind obedience of fools.

 

I suspect, as we start to see the MEWP as the preferred method slowly building a more frequent usage, we will also start to see an increase in the accident rate associated with poor choice or operation of the MEWP - there was that case recently where they used a MEWP because it had been written into the policy as the 'preferred' option, but then failed to set it up properly resulting in a death which would not have happened had they climbed.

 

I'm not in any way anti-MEWP quite the contrary (I'm in the market) in the right circumstance.  I am however, anti-make a policy which could result in unforeseen adverse consequences.

 

Just 1 minor point about 'reasonably practicable' though - it would be very difficult / indefensible to justify 'cost' as a reason not to go with the safer option. 

Broadly speaking I agree with your sentiments on MEWP's, and I spent £30k buying one last year!  I think if they are widely adopted in tree work the number of MEWP related accidents will undoubtedly rise as you say. But as far as the regulations go its, work from ground...no? Work from MEWP...no? then work from a rope and harness....

Not saying I agree with that but there it is.

21 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

I saw 'The Mule' on the plane to Minneapolis this summer. It was a good film. Clint looks old now though.

I think any argument based on extra difficulty / cost is going to fall flat since 'what price do you put on a life?' This is why I have only seriously considered specific operations where 2 rope working is going to be more dangerous than a single line.

There is however an accepted term: 'where reasonably practicable to do so' so if the extra effort of something out weighs the safety benefit then you are allowed to consider a more practical alternative. An example of this is: under the current WAH regs WAH should be avoided if possible. This means that a MEWP is preferable to climbing. So the justification needs to be made as to why a MEWP is not being used. This is where "reasonably practicable" comes in. If the additional time / effort / cost of the MEWP is beyond what is considered reasonably practicable then you may not use it. This has to be justified in the RA though. 

It had crossed my mind that a line attached to a cambium saver / rope guide running through a crotch and down the back of the tree to a basal tie off as in an SRT setup would effectively back up that anchor point. But then I'm not sure how big an issue anchor failure really is? Ironically the one time I have snapped one was when I was tied in on two lines which allowed me to 'push the envelope' in a pollard full of weak attachments, as was mentioned in a post earlier.