Jake Andrews

haven't heard of that one @Stubby, but possibly. Thinking on it now, its quite easy for our industry to use splices for rope terminations but not so easy for rope access guys. They still use a lot of knots for anchoring................... so why aren't they falling out constantly due to poorly tied knots like we are?

Thanks for that Warren. It appears they have totally different types of work place accidents. Mainly falling objects, decent problems and rope severance. I know its obvious as they work in totally different environments than us however they have remarkably low accidents really. Will this two rope working improve our accident stats? time will tell but i assume this will take a long time to determine with many people adopting to ignore the two rope working stance. eventually

Boy this thread moves fast! Just spent the afternoon catching up, thanks for putting the time in VI, im very much enjoying it. Can i ask if you require permission for all of your work from the FC such as the ride widening or is it all part of the long term management plan?

Yup. This is the start of something much bigger in time. Does any one have statistics of rope access accidents for last year or know where to find it?

Yes. It’s ok but will take time to dial in. Found I can get into much better positions with two but main slow down is set up and pack up of kit. Works well tho tbh.

But when we aren’t touching any part of the tree and dangling in the air (think srt or accessing the tree) we are rope access.................... which requires a back up line.

I totally agree Marc that this will not be a quick change and i don't think that even when more info is available on how we are to proceed, people will still be climbing on one system in 5 maybe 10 years time. Like i said earlier, i haven't used an ASAP or similar yet. i can just see this being the easiest route into 2 rope working for some 'simpler' arborists. I like how you have described the 'Hey Day' where we made our own gear and every arborist was different. I see your point that this will no longer be the case and we will be rolling out standard arborists with standard setups almost. My gut feeling tells me that whilst this will go ahead, the industry as a whole is not geared up nor ready for such a big change. We will all need much additional training from new gear uses, rescue and general climbing time to get used to such systems. There will also be a shift in trainers and assessors in what they are teaching, so they too will require training. This may lead to a shortage of trainers and assessors for a while whilst they retrain. I truly wonder weather the best way to go about it would be IRATA training with an aerial tree worker specialist ticket. The problem lies in that with all the different levels and responsibilities. But their training as you say, is much more comprehensive than ours.

I don’t think we will get a direct response from HSE but just a updated ICOP and tech guide from AA to work to. I don’t think they are giving much info on it as they are likely to be working it out themselves. Dire situation really.

Didn’t take it as a smart response. Just stating that the line and system was just there to get used to having another system in a tree to monitor and tend. It’s not CE marked and I don’t think it ever will tbh.

My thoughts on separate anchors differ from yours. Aren’t rope access technicians separately anchored but on the same wall some times? I have used separate anchors in my example above, albeit on the same stem. My experience has led me to select said anchors that I believe to be robust enough to take on the task at hand. In this situation I am backing up gear failure. I do share your opinion that I Am on an already rated system so why should it fail? But again....... aren’t rope access technicians on a rated system that is backed up by another rated system? I wonder where this rule has come from backing up an already rated system, I’d love to know. Just to confirm, I am not using a cammed device. I can just see it as the forward to comply with the regs on simple up/down trees like a spruce. For decurrent growth pattern trees (spreading), I think having two separate climbing systems would be better for redirecting and better work position. I totally agree that a rescue scenario would take longer and I’m afraid I have no answer for you yet on that. Having said that, using two systems to gain a better work position can mitigate against such injuries. Work positioning is everything as we know. I am not totally for this stance and not overly keen on using two ropes for every situation. I am keen however on trying to get my head around using two system as the HSE’s decision is not going to change.

See above reply. The runner is merely to see what working with two ropes is like and not to work on. I have since borrowed another rw.

Hi Pete. Yes I had two anchor points. Anchor 1 was selected as my working line - hitchclimber Anchor two was my safety line and was selected approx 500-600mm below anchor 1 which was bomb proof - Runner. I selected anchor 1 based on what I would normally anchor too for this tree but had to go slightly lower due to the second climber. Therefore my safety line being lower but on the same stem is a different, independent anchor point IMO. Otherwise if we need two separate stems to anchor to every tree then we can totally write off conifers. The second climber was secured higher than me for this tree. He is our apprentice and he did most of the work, I just went up to give a hand on the back stem and also to give pointers in the tree (training). In reality and normal practice this particular tree would have been worked by one climber however I do take your point with not enough anchors for two climbers. More trees will need to be worked by 1 climber only due to lack of anchors. As for the ASAP question. No we are not IRATA trained which will likely be the case for 98% of arborists across the country. Unfortunately I believe this will involve more training especially for rescue scenarios. If some one falls onto a cammed device then they are going to need lifting and many current training providers do not cover this in aerial rescue (I know I wasn’t). So in short, the majority of the arb industry in the uk will need to up skill and gain a higher qualification to comply particularly for rope rescue. What intrigues me is if IRATA will come out with an arborist qualification. This will then allow them to sell it world wide????? It’s a potential money maker for them.

Marc just to confirm, I do not believe 2 rope working is a safer method in every scenario. However, if we are forced to go down this route then I would like 2 ropes to be a benefit to me and not a hinderance. This to me will only come with patience and practice.

My point was just to try working with two systems for this particular tree. I don’t climb on my runner any more and do not have a second RW although I have now borrowed one from another climber. There is know way that with this large a step in our industry we are going to get it right 1st time. This is why I’m starting the ball rolling now. Please ignore the runner as it was used as a back up and not my primary system straight away. I am not currently trying to comply with the W@H regs, I’m am just trying to see how it can be practically implemented into our work.

No I haven’t had any issues with it. It seems to fit fine against the pulley. The advantages of this is I can go through as many redirects as I want and I can still retrieve the rope guide. It doesn’t have to be a straight in line pull. That’s interesting that ART have said that. I thought they would stay away from something that could potentially double the weight on it. In saying that, I suppose I must be rated for rescue. I do love the rope guide.

I use the rope guide for my srt anchor as well. I pass the rope through the rope guide as normal, splice going through pulley with retrievable clip on the other side. I make sure my splice is on the ground and tie my srt device on that side. The side with the retrieval clip I tie an alpine butterfly. And place a carabiner in the loop incase of accidental slippage of the knot. This knot then gets jammed against the device allowing me to climb on the rope guide with only 1x my weight on it. When I want to retrieve, simply remove all hardware from the spliced end, put the retrievable ball on the splice. Pull on the alpine butterfly side of the line until the splice goes through the pulley and pulls out the rope guide. Very simple but hard to describe in writing. I’ll try and get a pic.

No orange rope is Marlow Vega with the blue/green rope Samson velocity. Both sub 12mm ropes.

Yes some were open but I also had it in some conifers and a cedar that needed deadwooding. Back up system one: This was my first go. I only needed to go up and down in this willow removal so was very over kill. Needed a Petzl ASAP if I’m honest but I don’t like the £170 price tag! I’ve been using a CT Roll’n’lock as a progress capture but it’s not to great on coming down.

Hey guys, haven't posted here in a while but iv come back to grown up Arbtalk as opposed to the FB one! At first i was feeling the same way about two rope working much like most of you however i am starting to come around to it. Regarding all the same excuses as it will take longer, cost more money and the guys down the road won't do it is a waste of breath in my opinion. Its coming to the Arb industry and we need to be ready for it, end of. HSE will not give a monkeys about money or time if it is regarded as safer and that is their bottom line. The accident reports regarding fall from heights in our industry could be from many people or contractors and i don't think looking at who it was and the severity of the accident counts. i know many LARGE outfits around my way who mainly employ fresh out of college arborists who are arguable most risk of having an injury. Just because they are AA approved or a bigger outfit, does not mean that they won't have accidents, just means they are more likely to report them. I have read into the argument that work positioning (WP) involves feet against a structure. So climbing up Ddrt and change overs is WP whilst SRT to the TIP is rope access (which makes sense in my head). As soon as the climber is climbing around the tree and feet against the tree (even on SRT), this is WP. Redirecting off a limb and descending down onto a limb whilst suspended from the rope is rope access so back up is needed. As soon as they are non the limb, it is then work positioning. When ascending back to the redirect, we are back to rope access. So here is my issue. As you can see from my example above (if i am correct), we change from WP to rope access frequently without knowing it if your like me and choose to climb SRT. If i am to have a backup system then i want it for the full climb and not for intermittent parts. I am fine in the idea of using such systems provided there is an overall benefit. I have been climbing all week on 2 systems and i have found it very rewarding and i can also see many benefits so far. I will be continuing to use these systems to try and beat the date when we are to use this fully as standard practice. I have used a number of different back up systems to suit different tree types which i believe to be the answer. I don't believe that there will be one system to suit all. We've said it many times before but there is many ways to climb a tree and we choose which one is best before we ascend. A back up system will be the same. Also, the argument for having ropes tangled and such must be the same for the rope access industry right? they have stolen many of our techniques over the years, perhaps now is the time where we could learn something from them. I like the way this discussion is going on here[emoji106]

If your creating standing deadwood and willing to go back to remove plugs, don't worry about the amount you put in. Any type of glyphosate will cause dysfunction to the tree and a slowly dying tree is better for habitat than a tree that dies suddenly. Go in the woods, record what you do and learn from it. I for one think its a great idea, but ring barking may look more desirable. Bright white plastic in a tree stem is far more eye catching than a chainsaw to the buttress. I can guarantee that you will not retrieve many plugs when they are smashed in as they fan out inside the hole. The plastic is an issue large scale as well like you say. Good luck and let us know how it goes.

Was the underpinning piled or trench filled foundation at 3.3m?

Second that.

Amazing. sounds good

That was supposed to be a joke Sounds like a pretty doomed tree! whats the plan?