scotspine1

This video shows an Arboricultural Association competition/training event held in March this year. No twin lines being used yet they're the trade body of our industry who were responsible for the promotion and establishment of twin lines from 2005 onwards. You can see in the video that after 14 years they are still content to be promoting the use of a single line for movement through the canopy (with work positioning lanyard for cutting etc). There's nothing wrong with this. However, there now seems to be a lack of consistency with the Arb Association's approach to the promotion of twin ropes. In some ways this event shows the good work the AA do in promoting safety in climbing. They now need to be more robust in their dealings with the HSE and defend our industry and the work we've done to make it safer. They need to reject the mandatory/enforced use of twin line systems at all times in the tree.

A doubled rope system is a single line. It doesn't matter wether it's moving as part of a traditional system over a branch or a static SRT line. The legislation is for both DdRT and SRT. You need to be on two systems at all times from the ground up to the final descent. .

This video shows an Arboricultural Association competition/training event held in March this year. No twin lines being used yet they're the trade body of our industry who were responsible for the promotion and establishment of twin lines from 2005 onwards. You can see in the video that after 14 years they are still content to be promoting the use of a single line for movement through the canopy (with work positioning lanyard for cutting etc). There's nothing wrong with this. However, there now seems to be a lack of consistency with the Arb Association's approach to the promotion of twin ropes. In some ways this event shows the good work the AA do in promoting safety in climbing. They now need to be more robust in their dealings with the HSE and defend our industry and the work we've done to make it safer. They need to reject the mandatory/enforced use of twin line systems at all times in the tree.

I agree. This latest development with the enforced or mandated use of twin line systems is an example of top down bureaucracy by the Health and Safety Executive - it’s not a grassroots development that evolved naturally from within the climbing/arb community. It’s an outsider with limited knowledge of our work dictating how we should perform our work. It’s almost entirely unworkable and totally impractical and in some cases downright dangerous (self rescue). .

From the Industry Code of Practice Draft - 2.9.2 Work positioning – Moving Rope Technique – MRT A technique where the rope passes over or through an anchor and is formed into a large adjustable loop when both parts are brought together. The operator connects to both parts of the rope; one part remains static (often the termination of the rope) and the other is connected via a midline attachment in the form of a friction-based adjustment element, i.e. a friction hitch or mechanical device. During ascent, descent or lateral movement the rope travels through or over the anchor as a result of the operator’s inputs, i.e. the taking in or letting out of rope from the adjustment element. When this technique is used, the system must incorporate a suitable back-up which the user must be connected to. The use of a single system (i.e. without the use of a back-up) is only acceptable when it can be demonstrated that installing a back-up is not reasonably practicable. 2.9.3 Rope access and positioning – Stationary Rope Technique – SRT A technique where the rope passes over or through an anchor or multiple anchors and is secured so that the rope remains stationary. The operator connects to one part of the rope using one or more friction-based adjustment elements and can ascend, descend and move laterally along the rope whilst it remains stationary at the anchor. An SRT system can also consist of two parallel sections of rope in order to enable a friction hitch or a mechanical device to be secured around both parts simultaneously. This could be a single rope doubled over and secured to prevent separation, two independently anchored lines or two independently acting lines. 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 that entails higher risk* .

IRATA/Industrial Rope Access has spent decades perfecting and refining working at heights with rope in some incredibly harsh environments. But they didn't stop there. They developed a training system that is integral to everything and everyone in that field. Two ropes as a stand-alone mandate does almost nothing to reduce accidents. Add the IRATA systematic training schedule that has ‘levels’ that must be adhered to by all participating members, THEN you have a recipe for high levels of safety. The tree industry has also spent decades perfecting climbing systems for our specific and very different work environment. The systems and tools that are in use today for tree work are hugely innovative and incredibly safe. What we don't have is control over how those systems and tools are used, literally, none at all. Yes we have NPTC and LANTRA to guide things, but that is not even close to the same thing as IRATA. In the UK today you can become a fully qualified tree surgeon/climbing arborist after passing a few weeks long course in tree surgery, even if you add a mandatory twin rope system to this course it is in no way comparable to the steady, ‘levels’ incremental training combined with experience regime of IRATA/Industrial Rope Access. Most accidents in our industry today occur due to deviation from safety protocols not be because we weren’t climbing on twin lines. The vast majority of tree climbers today tie in twice when cutting. If you choose not to tie in twice with your work positioning lanyard/flip line when cutting you’re deviating from a well established safety protocol. Getting back to the IRATA comparison - there is nothing to stop a tree climber from switching tools and systems, without oversight, and to self proclaim proficiency. And proficient they may be, to a point, but in the field of working at height, time at a ‘level of proficiency’ is what is needed if safety is the goal. Only with work hours accrued will the multitude of variables become apparent. Only with time, and consistently doing it right, will muscle memory protect you when fatigued and experience protect you from a cut or a fall. Climbing on two lines at all times won’t suddenly and arbitrarily make you, ‘safer’. Given the vast differences in our industry from IRATA how much safer will arborists be with this enforced two rope mandate? The self rescue entangled twin ropes scenario suggests there’s a very real problem at the outset with the promotion and introduction of a mandatory twin rope climbing system in treework. .

While I agree Pete, people need to be made aware of the potential danger with a twin line system in a self rescue situation, which is why I started the thread. .

I agree. Especially if you need to bring them together but the two ropes are coming in from wide opposing angles. .

So your groundie is constantly tending, managing and feeding the slack of your two trailing ends into your ropebags while you move around and up and down the tree? if so he's constantly moving into the drop zone to carry this out. How is that safe? .

That's not what you said in the two rope update thread: "Learning on the classic 3 knot system means that I can still cut any tree I come across with nothing more than a longish rope, a shortish rope and a harness. I look at the complexity of all this .... and I just don’t think I could be arsed." So are you using two full length climbing lines? or a full length rope and a 'shortish rope'? if you're using a shortish rope this contravenes the new industry code of practice as both ropes have to reach the ground. .

If the bleeding climber unclips one of his twin lines and descends on a single line, the trailing ends of his ropes still have the ability to become entangled, they've been sitting together (possibly twisted) while he worked in the tree. .

Anyone setting out to work in the tree using a twin line system needs to be aware of a potentially dangerous situation which could arise from using twin lines. Example - A climber accidently cuts himself high up in the tree. He still has the ability to self rescue and descend out of the tree to seek urgent emergency first aid. As the bleeding climber descends - the trailing ends of his twin lines become entangled beneath him midway through the descent severely restricting his progress to the ground, trapping him at this point. In this scenario the climber could bleed out. .

On bigger trees, twin wrench SRT lines will be the way forward for ascent and working in the tree. The ability to re-direct, move either of the static lines around stems and branches (whilst tied in with a lanyard) will be far easier than dragging two DdRT lines through the canopy. Rope management will be a lot easier with two SRT lines and your bridge will be a lot less cluttered than it would be with two DdRT lines. You can operate two wrenches simultaneously with one hand for descent or branchwalking.

You will be able to descend to the ground on two lines using a main line, short rope (and lanyard) setup. The circles below show your working radius or zones you can reach with each rope. The red area is your main line, it can get you to every part of the tree shown within the red circle, it also reaches the ground at all times. The blue area is a secondary short rope, when you've finished pruning the top part of the tree, by the time you've moved your anchor for this rope down to a lower point in the canopy of the tree you should be able to descend to the ground on both your main line and short rope, The lanyard is for change overs between the mainline and short rope and additional work positioning support. Below shows you at the start point of the work, at this point you are tied into both the main rope and short rope, as you move across and down through the canopy you re-anchor the shorter rope to another zone, change overs are done using the lanyard so you are always tied in twice. By the time you've finished the shorter rope circle/zone of work has moved down to a point where you can descend to the ground on it (and the main line together). The main purpose of using a shorter rope is that it negates the need to drag the trailing ends of two 45m ropes around the tree. This system could be adapted to DdRT or SRT or a combination of both. .

For the third time, from the AA two line update webpage FAQs "Q: Will both ropes have to reach the ground? A: New technical guide has been drafted stating that at least one of the systems in use by the operator must be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground (i.e. without the need for a change of anchor) from any point within the canopy in the event of a self-rescue being required. During descent under normalclimbing conditions, the climber will need to ensure that they remain connected to two systems for theduration of their descent." .

On the last Spruce pics, I’m descending on my main line with my flipline round the trunk. No need whatsoever for a full length extra life line. I’m not against change. I’m against unnecessary change just so that the HSE and AA can be seen to be doing something to address their statistical data on accidents. Another recent job........most serious, experienced pro climbers today in the UK are using two tie in points at the work position when they’re cutting with the saw and they’re almost 100% tied in at the most critical moments in a removal for instance, here (rigging a head out). The HSE and most disappointedly the AA have delegitimised us all overnight when in reality the way we all currently climb today is both logical from a safety point of view and valid from a professional point of view. .

I’m not putting a large 30m MEWP on that tree for two reasons. That access road is very narrow which means the outriggers are going down onto soft ground even with large thick underpads I’m not doing it on principle. MEWPS are far from being the wonder solution to tree removal they’re often touted as. That’s coming from someone who’s used them on 100s+ of big dismantles where the ground was rock solid and perfectly flat. The second reason is that those trees were perfectly healthy and more than suitable for climbing. Felling from ground level was not an option. Been doing a fair bit of thinking on this two rope issue on recent climbs like this. Your thoughts occasionally turn to the feasibility of adding in a second line (3 in total) and all that entails. One major issue that’s not been brought up is that when you add an extra climbing system to your setup it will have a distracting effect on your ability to focus on the tree itself. 3 lines and the additional hardware will undoubtedly dominate your mind to the detriment of your focus on the tree itself and the actual job in hand. We need to think very carefully as an industry before we adopt this very prescriptive guidance by the HSE and AA who only ever talk in the abstract about our job from the comfort of their warm offices. .

We’re going round in circles here, this is from the same AA webpage under FAQ "Q: Will both ropes have to reach the ground? A: New technical guide has been drafted stating that at least one of the systems in use by the operator must be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground (i.e. without the need for a change of anchor) from any point within the canopy in the event of a self-rescue being required. During descent under normal climbing conditions, the climber will need to ensure that they remain connected to two systems for the duration of their descent." Recent job. One main life line, one flipline at all times. Explain to me why anyone would need a second climbing line in this tree? By all means add in a second flipline for change overs on the upwards branch stripping part of the job but from this point on? Two full length lines? No.

Then why bother mentioning the Asap is for work positioning? “As regards work positioning on the 'lock' .. that's what it's designed for” Its not designed for that at all. It’s primarily designed as a secondary fall arrest device. It certainly wasn’t designed with treework in mind either. That main centrifugal operated cam will be useless after the first cut fills it with saw shavings. Treework is a million miles away from industrial rope access. Its an entirely separate and distinct rope discipline. .

Warren, You'll need to persevere with managing the trailing ends of your lines, that may mean feeding them down through separate channels in the crown to avoid them getting tangled or crossed. Groundies will need to be attentive and keep them apart in ropebags etc. It'll be difficult and frustrating but it's a skill you'll need to develop. This system of yours here is fine, just learn to manage the ropes better. You're going to need to monitor and attend to them continually. .

Imagine for a moment......leaning out along a big limb, standing on your spikes cutting with a 70cc saw at full revs during a dismantle, your mainline slips off a stub further up in the canopy - shockloading the Asap line, the Asap line is suddenly dynamically loaded with your weight plus the saw weight, the absorber deploys. You fall onto the Asap line clattering yourself against the trunk with the 70cc saw running full revs. Not a great scenario to find yourself in. .

"Q: Will both ropes have to reach the ground? A: New technical guide has been drafted stating that at least one of the systems in use by the operator must be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground (i.e. without the need for a change of anchor) from any point within the canopy in the event of a self-rescue being required. During descent under normal climbing conditions, the climber will need to ensure that they remain connected to two systems for the duration of their descent." Quoted from this page...... .

Pete, the Petzl Asap and other similar fall arrest devices are not the solution to the twin rope issue. The Asap doesn’t need to be attached to a dorsal attachment but that’s beside the point. The idea that you lock it off when work positioning then it suddenly becomes a work positioning device is dangerous. Warren is using his with an add on shock/energy absorber which is even worse when you stop to consider the ramifications of it suddenly releasing/activating when he’s using a big saw along a heavy lateral limb during a dismantle. That means you have to use it 100% of the time with the figure 8 in situ - thereby negating the fall arrest aspect of it and rendering it pointless as a shadowing secondary back up line. You’d be better going back to your wrench setup.

Have 3 viable systems prior to leaving the ground (2 climbing lines, 1 lanyard). In the case of a single stemmed conifer removal - 2 fliplines and a mainline will suffice as they clearly state above - a lanyard is a, ‘viable system’. You can descend to the ground on twin lanyards should you cut your main line. Expand this mindset out to an open grown deciduous tree - a short secondary line (which easily falls within the scope a, ‘viable system’ will get you to the ground when used in conjunction with a lanyard should you cut your mainline. Warren, you wouldn’t use the ropeguide or cambium saver (multisaver etc) for the secondary short rope as it will be used over multiple different anchor points as you work your way around, across, and down through the canopy. Also, how do you plan to descend out of the tree on the ASAP if you cut your main line? .

Experience climbers will be able to navigate this latest twin rope development using a main line, a lanyard and a shorter climbing line - say 5m/6m/7m. .