Moby

As a contributor to the ICOP I have followed this thread with a keen interest which comprises opinions that are intelligent, informative and funny and at no point have plumbed the depths of offense…yet! As an industry we have long sought clarity on issues of technical nature and have scoured a variety of related texts, ACOPs, ICOPs, Research reports and magazine articles. Variety as they say is ‘the spice of life’; however, when using this mode of information collection to provide a fundament upon which to base industry practices, it can also serve to muddy the waters! When the AA commissioned the ICOP it was with the intention of providing principles and guidance and a framework around which we as an industry could map our work planning and systems. Given the plethora of information available it is important to provide clarity and cohesion as a basis from which to produce other technical guidance information. During the authoring process one issue which was prevalent from the outset was the need to clarify the operating parameters for the systems we use; in order to do this it was first necessary to define those systems. Within the industry we use terms and words to describe our techniques and systems such as: double rope, doubled rope, single rope, foot-lock, rope access, work positioning, dynamic and static. Each of these terms/words, although pertinent and applicable have been used to describe both systems and also components of systems. Not only this but when used in these contexts have been applied to subtly differing systems and thus creating potential confusion. Tree work operations involving the use of a rope and harness will include a collection of components which when used correctly combine to either limit the potential for a fall or minimise the distance and consequences of a fall (referred to as a personal fall protection/prevention system). Personal fall protection/prevention systems can include: work restraint, work positioning and fall arrest. Work positioning is defined as a technique allowing a person working at height to be supported in tension or suspension, by PPE configured to prevent or reduce falls. Sub systems of work positioning are defined within the ICOP as; Doubled rope technique, Stationary rope technique, Spiking. The attached diagram illustrates this. If we map commonly used terminology against each of these sub-systems and the definitions used within the ICOP, it would translate as per the following: Doubled rope technique = Body thrusting, thrutching. Stationary rope technique = Single rope techniques, foot-locking. Where confusion commonly arises is in the use of the words double/ doubled. This has been used to make reference to the number of ropes in a system and also the configuration of a single piece of rope. What should be considered, rather than the number or configuration of ropes is the motion of the rope being stationary or moving. Therefore an operator could use a moving rope technique (body thrusting) with a stationary rope technique providing a back-up (single line with trailed device i.e Petzl ASAP). Having read and re-read the ICOP definitions, it would seem more logical to now define sub-systems as simply, moving rope technique and stationary rope technique thus removing spiking as a stand-alone technique. Instead incorporating it into either moving or stationary by virtue of the ways in which an operator can secure themselves during ascent and descent when spiking. Watch this space for the first amendment to the ICOP!!….thanks for the input my learned colleagues!

...definition a per BS EN 1891 3.1 Low Stretch Kernmantle: 'a textile rope consisting of a core enclosed by a sheath, designed for use by persons in rope access including all kinds of work positioning and restraint; for rescue and speleolgy' There is also a foot note which states that the core is 'usually' the main load bearing element. However this is the standard to which 99% of the ropes we use are tested, so they will fall under this generic definition. There are both core dependant and cover dependant kernmantles; single braided ropes with a core which is purely to help the rope remain round under load, would for the sakes of testing probably be classed as the latter. Like you Steve, i'm also keen to be enlightened so appreciate any other opinions.

In arb, as in many other work at height applications we use Low Stretch Kernmantle (See BS EN 1891). Kern = Core, Mantle = Cover. Dynamic ropes are often used in rock climbing due to the nature of the discipline and are classified under BS EN 892 Dynamic mountaineering ropes. Low stretch ropes are what we use in arb for rope access and work positioning (also called semi-static. There are very few truely static ropes, but if you were looking for one you couldn't go far wrong with Teufelberger Globe 5000. The core of this rope is made from Dyneema which is exceptionally strong and almost zero stretch. However should not be used for PPE due to having a peak force which is higher than the EN will tolerate (greater than 6Kn)...i.e it would really smart if this rope arrested a fall! Dyneema also has a very low melting point.

The other thing to bare in mind here is the increased loading at the anchor point - potentially double what it would normally be in a standard Ddrt. When the legs of the rope are separated (one end attached to the climber and the other to the base of the tree) the anchor then supports the weight of the climber and an equal and opposite force to prevent the load (climber) from falling/moving. Almost like a set of scales that need to balance, with 100kgs on either side the overall weight on the scales will be 200kgs.

I'm sorry chaps, I didn't mean to upset the apple cart. I appreciate that the systems we classify as lanyards are often longer than 2m and also that we are sold products with double-action snaps spliced into them that are also longer than 2m. I only wanted to mention (particularly with a view to going through training and assessment) what legislation states and how best practice ties-in with it, just incase an assessor was to take issue.

Hi Jim, just a quick point with regard to double-action auto-locking snaps (if you still plan to incorporate one into your lanyard?). Current industry best practice (The Guide to Good Climbing Practice) says that they are only acceptable for use on lanyards ; EN 354 defines a lanyard as being a connection in a system that is equal to but no more than 2m in length. Consequently you are probably better off using triple-action auto-locking caribiners to be on the safe side, especially if you're going for training and assessment.

Wire core fliplines are not mandatory for CS39, they are recommended for use in scenarios where the chainsaw has to be used i close proximity to the climbing lines, additionally their rigdity aids in flipping them up the stem - hence 'flipline'.