Jake Andrews

Yeh that’s kind of my point. On site training is key but there doesn’t seem to be enough experienced guys to train the ‘newbies’ well. This then puts then on the back foot from the off and makes them unappealing to good outfits when they are hiring. At current, as you say, we can under go a few weeks training and then start our own firm. Im Sure it’s worked for some but I have built my skills learning from various different people. Definitely would not have the same skill set now if I would have gone on my own straight from college.

It’s a shame that the disposal of guards are not accounted for when applying for funding or even a woodland management plan. It’s sickening to see this so often.

The axel looks a tad weak to tow a chipper behind that mind.

The problem is it does not specifically say that you CAN NOT run two systems from one bridge that I have seen. It gives no guidance at all how to manage two systems on your harness. IMO 2 systems on one bridge are NOT independently anchored. But where does it say that in the draft ICOP?‍♂️

But is it those ‘types’ of people who have got us in this mess and falling out of trees?‍♂️. A little industry structure wouldn’t harm us I don’t think but it’s to difficult to police. No way would it happen. Rope access is pro dominantly commercial and so easy to lay on the additional training costs. Unfortunately we have a domestic market to cater for aswell where cost cutting matters to many. I really don’t know a way forward that isn’t status quo.

Yes. The HSE have said that any investigation of an Arboricultural work site will be expected that two ropes are in use.

The last refresher training I went on for aerial rescue, I wasn’t allowed to use SRT. I felt as though the instructor had no experience with the use of SRT and so didn’t want me to use it as he couldn’t recommend a rescue scenario or advice. Completely useless for me as I climb SRT around 80% of the time and was the only one at the time so my team mates also didn’t know how to rescue. We have since done our own training and come up with our own rescue protocols and now more people are using it SRT in the company. My gut feeling tells me that a majority of instructors may be a little out of date with current methods and practices. Oh, and don’t hold out for your money back.

Ok, so I’ve been skim reading the IRATA ICOP to compare against our new draft version. Oh boy is it comprehensive........... well, more than ours anyway. It’s a solid 218 pages long compared to our 52?‍♂️. That gives an idea to the lack of information in which we have been provided. I’ve taken screen shots of just a few points that we have touched on in this or other threads relating to the new ICOP. - The first point is that it specifically allows both lines to be attached to the same point on the harness. From what I can see in the draft ICOP, no where does it mention that two lines are permitted to be attached on to one bridge. This has caused a lot of confusion in the industry (not just on this platform) where it is unknown whether two points of attachment on the bridge is permitted or not. - Second point relates to ensuring operatives/technicians are unable to descend off the end of the rope. Again, happy to be corrected but I don’t recall seeing this in our draft. I thought this would be an important insert into the draft seeing as a few of the aerial accidents recorded related to such this problem?‍♂️. Pic two shows what IRATA consider the attributes to consider when hiring or training a suitable rope access technician. Discussions have been had on this site relating to the standard of people employed in our industry and so I thought I would add this pic. Pic 3 lays out the roles and responsibilities of each level of operator. I know this has tried to be done in the draft with ‘responsible persons’ and ‘competent persons’ but I feel more expansion is needed. I’m not suggesting we move to a level tiered process but I do see the benefits of such a system with the level 3 being ultimately responsible. It also explains the progressive role of the level 1 operator. They should be supervised at all times until the level 3 dictates they are able to perform such tasks comptently. I know many of us do this on a daily basis or have these set ups in our workplaces however this is definitely not the case for many organisations throughout the industry. The next picture is really important to me. Just because the L3 is qualified, this does not mean they are a suitable candidate to be a supervisor of daily tasks and operations. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions for that one. A simple diagram of loads on anchors when applied at different angles. Now I personally have seen this diagram before and know these load increases/decreases but I can assure you many haven’t. There are many arborists using SRT redirects without knowing this basic principle. A simple diagram of a stopper knot?‍♂️. The IRATA ICOP is so much more detailed than ours and can really help their operators stay within the law AND provide good reference material for future operators. Our is much too ambiguous with many still scratching their heads after reading. We still have many more points in ours to discuss and refine. It has been almost 5 years since this last ICOP was produced. How long will we be working to a version that we don’t understand fully adding further confusion to the industry for many more years. This issue needs to be sorted NOW.

Would that be classed as independently anchored though seeing as its technically one system? I don’t know as the ICOP isn’t clear on what exactly independently anchored means?‍♂️

But employers with large staff turnovers don’t do that. They’re looking for the next member of staff to fulfil the contract they promised. I’m going to leave this here as I believe we are moving away from the topic of the thread.

I don’t think there is any need to go personal. I don’t think I am being contradictory. My stance in a nut shell. I’m not fully against 2 rope working at all time’s. I can see why this has come in that 2 rope working is mandatory from the accidents that have been reported in the past 3 years alone. I will make 2 ropes work and I will ensure that it is a benefit for me, not a hindrance. I also confident that I won’t get my ropes in a pickle as I am a stickler for good rope management. It will however inevitably slow me down which I wonder if that has the most adversity of it all. Do I think it will save more accidents from occurring or even less occurring over the same amount of time? No. I have made it no secret that I feel as though current training methods and assessment criteria are poor and inadequate. If we could make the training about content and quality over pass numbers, that is where I believe less accidents will occur. I believe we have a huge skills shortage in this industry and good, efficient, safe operators are not easy to come by. It takes a great deal of years, nurturing and patience to turn an apprentice into a fully fledged arborist. Some companies can’t keep regular staff for 12 months! So where do these apprentices get there on job training from a competent person? That’s the band of people where I believe most accidents occur. If we could design a new training scheme that would incorporate the skills needed by an arborist, perhaps wages would increase as would professionalism.

Can I ask why you are becoming disgruntled over carrying an extra 20-30ft of rope with you if you already comply? It seems as though you are already doing the hardest bit (2 ropes and 2 anchors) just without carrying extra length in one rope to fully comply?

I base tie for ascent then generally switch to a canopy tie for working.

But that’s not the point. It COULD happen. Your current system prevents you from self rescuing efficiently. We should be prepared and have systems for all scenarios, which IMO we are not trained for. Who hear believes that their CS38 training has prepared them for a complex rescue situation? Not mine. I’d be happy if my victim was hanging under a branch with suitable anchors for me to descend with them. Oh............... are we back to poor training again[emoji848]

B) rope length allows for at least one of the systems in use by the operator to be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground; We have interpreted that differently. My interpretation of that line is that one system at least must have an uninterrupted route to the ground I.e not draped over a load of branches or coiled/caught in the tree. It’s more about rope management imo.

So in an emergency (let’s say cut arm and main line) your going to rely on changeovers to the ground instead of a long rope to take you to the ground?

[emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji119] This. I too am jealous of the IRATA system. The training they have to go through and levels of competency they have to demonstrate to progress their careers AND wage is uncomparable to our industry. You can pass your CS39 and CS41 within 2 weeks and be sent up a thumping big tree with an 88 on your belt. Utterly ridiculous. I’m not against the twin lines tbh, but we NEED a better training system than we have. Rope access guys are seen as professionals in their own right and charge for that privilege. I wish we could be the same.[emoji17]

Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2><h1 class= blue bold display ><span class= blue display >INDUSTRY CONSULTATION</span></h1><h3 class= orange bold >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h3><p class= lead >This is the ‘<a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>’ for the second edition of the AA’s ‘Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height’ (ICoP) – First edition published in 2015.</p><p>This revision includes editorial and technical revisions throughout the document but there are specific, significant amendments in:</p><ul class= wia > <li><b>2.8.4 – Crane</b></li> <li><b>2.8.6 – Personal fall protection systems</b></li> <li><b>2.9 – Work positioning and rope access</b></li> <li><b>2.11.6 – [Equipment selection] Performance specifications</b></li></ul><p class= m30 >As with the first edition, the ICoP is aimed at the ‘<b>Responsible Person</b>’ and the ‘<b>Competent Person</b>’ within arboricultural contracting companies. The aim of the ICoP is to identify the principal planning, management and supervisory requirements necessary to establish safe systems of work for tree work operations at height. It is due for publication in early 2020.</p><h3 class= dblue bold >Responses</h3><p>Please read through the draft and make note of any comments. Please then complete the short ‘<a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a>’ questionnaire, adding any extra information where requested.</p><p>If you have a longer or more complex comment or query, please email to <a href= mailto:[email protected] ><span class= bold blue >[email protected]</span></a> with ‘<b>ICoP Draft for consultation</b>’ as the subject title.</p><h4 class= orange bold mt20 >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h4><p>Please use the link below to review the <a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>.</p><p>You can provide feedback via <a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a> using the link below or the links within the PDF.</p><p class= clearfix mt20 mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf >View Draft for Consultation ></a></p><p class= clearfix mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 >Take the Survey ></a></p><p>Thank you for taking the time to review the draft for consultation, your feedback is extremely valuable in helping us complete this important new guidance.</p>

This isn’t about LOLER 1998. It’s about working at height regs 2005, nothing to do with LOLER.

I don’t disagree with what your saying. I’ve always worked with 1 line and a strop. Just the way it’s been done during my time. The industry is obviously on the change though. You are well within your rights to write out two lines in your RA........... it just needs to be justified if someone major goes wrong. You say why does it need 2 lines, but the question will be, why not? If something very very unlikely we’re to go wrong on a decent, you’ve got a backup. Is it going to be that taxing to move another system up with you on that particular tree? Probably not. This whole process will ensure that tree work WILL take longer to perform. We just have to live with that. If anything it may reign in some gun hoe climbers to second think things and slow them down a tad. I really don’t think this will be that major an issue. Just will take time to familiarise ourselves with. In saying all this, I haven’t climbed for the last 8 weeks due to snapping a tendon in my thumb but will be back to it after Christmas. I’m kinda looking forward to the challenge to be honest. Onwards and upwards.

Both lines must enable decent out of the tree so therefore 2 flip lines wouldn’t work from a spar. The way I see it is 2 work lines (primary and backup if you like) and then a strop for better work positioning when cutting or working.

So will the ASAP follow you to the extremity of a branch or does it need to follow a straight line of rope?

Any chance you got a pic of your setup?

Sounds like he’s given you sound advice to be fair. Doesn’t want you to spend your money twice. If it were me I would wait. Reducing trees are superficial and therefore not always required whereas removal is a justified decision.

Doesn’t matter which side you ascend. Just go up th route where your final anchor or task is. Also, don’t bounce test anchors. This can weaken branch and potentially break when your ascending. Simply apply two persons weight on the anchors in a static pull. Don’t jump up and down on the rope. Make sense?