Bolt

You keep saying that according to the draft ICOP that I MUST have two full length climbing systems in the tree, but for MRT, WHERE IN THE DRAFT ICOP IS IT STATED? Where are the actual words? The draft ICOP is publicly viewable, you must realise that anyone can look at it and see that what you are saying is written, is in reality, not actually there! ?

Do I spy an agenda here? Maybe you have an SRT agenda.... maybe your agenda involves training....

So you advocate MRT working where there are two ropes attached to the climber at all times (possibly adding to the complexity of the current system and it’s management) and then you say the current training is inadequate anyway. Your approach seems slightly contradictory. I hope you are not employed in a role that requires you to hand out h+s advice, or write company policy!

ALL scenarios! Of the incidents I’ve investigated, the best rescues involved a MEWP. If you REALLY think that “We should be prepared and have systems for all scenarios,” then it looks like there should be emergency-evac spider MEWPS in every site then. Nice.

How ridiculous. If one long rope got cut as I chainsawed my arm, it is highly likely the other long rope got compromised as well. If you were anymore risk averse, you would be proposing that we have an additional emergency kit safely stashed on our belt, just in case. Our occupational health and safety system is based on the Health and Safety Act, which requires a reasonablity aspect to be used when planning and preparing for work. A lump of Ice could strike a climber on the head whilst working, or an escaped polar bear from the zoo could maul the groundsman, but no one would reasonably expect an employer to take this into account, would they? It’s just not reasonable.

Of course you can, But just for clarity, the question above is what I would expect from someone who is in favour of MRT being undertaken with two ropes long enough to reach the ground at all times. Is this the case or have I failed to understand your question?

Why, If you don’t want it, and the draft ICOP does not state it is mandatory (for MRT) do you keep harping on about it then. Its exactly this kind of over-zealous misinterpretation of regulations and legislation, spread about by pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘experts’ *that gets our nation into the overcompliance nightmares that we so find ourselves in. *not that I am implying in any way that anyone on here is a pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘expert‘

Cool, my long rope/ short rope / lanyard MRT system looks like a winner to me. Always been a wizard with my rope discipline.

Nope. I asked about the draft ICOP. Why are you misquoting what I asked for? The draft ICOP does not clearly state that for MRT both rope have to be long enough to reach the ground. Why are you making the contents of the ICOP out to be more onerous for MRT than it is?

I cut my arm AND my main line. Jeeez, not having a great day am I, what a dullard. Anyway, our industry’s solution is to have a trained and equipped aerial rescuer on site, who is competent and able to perform an immediate and effective aerial rescue. For you, that is suddenly not good enough, so the situation is for the overhyped 2-long-ropes-to-the-ground-system that you proposed so that..... I can cut my arm AND I can cut the end off my first long rope BUT as long as my second long rope is miraculously fully intact and operational, and I can simply use that to breeze effortlessly to the ground in time for tea and medals. What a guy ?

Do you really mean that you are against the mandatory/enforced two rope SRT system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA. If so, just come out and admit it. Continuing to appear to spread disinformation does little to add weight to you arguments.

No it doesn’t. I feel you are pushing your own agenda here. I think that spreading disinformation is a very poor way to try to improve the tree industry. Nothing in you screenshot above disproves what I am saying.

Yes I can. It’s an emergency situation and I can use my short rope in conjunction with my lanyard.

@scotspine1 So I required a second climbing system, based on a shorter rope, that I can use in conjunction with a lanyard, allowing me to descend to the ground in an emergency situation (such as destroying my main system). Been working like that for years.

Cool. My long rope / short rope / lanyard system works within that perfectly. No prison soap-on-a-rope for me.

As for C+G NPTC, that are an awarding body, offering nationally accredited assessments. They don’t produce ‘legislation’ but they should follow industry best practice (Such as the ICOP following the drafting, consultation and acceptance process).

But the ICOP states it different. How come the ICOP appears to be so much less onerous for ‘MRT, than you imply it is. @scotspine1 are you an SRT kinda guy by chance?

Your long rope/shorter rope(+lanyard) method wouldn't meet the requirements of the legislation. @scotspine1 Which bit of legislation states that I need two lines at all times from the ground up to the final descent? They seem to have missed it out of the draft ICOP, which is rather remiss of them!

@scotspine1 thanks for getting back. I climb on the system that the ICOP calls MRT. (A rope over a branch with an end attachment to my harness and a friction hitch / zigzag midline on the moving side. Totally standard system as taught for decades. ) The section 2.4.7 of the ICOP as I read it requires me to incorporate a suitable back-up which the user must be connected to. I reckon I have been doing this for years using my longish rope / shorter rope system. Where are you drawing your interpretation of the MRT system needing two ropes long enough to reach the ground from? thanks :- )

But having said that, this whole 2 rope business only really affects SRT users, yeah? (according to the draft ICOP).

For years I have climbed on a long rope, a short rope and a lanyard (MRT, obviously) according to the draft ICOP, what do I need to change. I would assume I’ve been ‘suitably backed up’ for years.

Anyway, back to ‘two ropes’... I have read loads on here about the requirements stating that: > You will have to have at least two rope systems attaching you at all times. > both rope systems must be long enough to reach the ground. but I still fail to see this spelt out in the ICOP for MRT 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. I don’t to sound pedantic but to me It’s a bit of a stretch to interpret the system must incorporate a suitable back-up as meaning that all climbers MUST have to have at least two rope systems attaching them at all times to two independent anchor points, and that both rope systems must be long enough to reach the ground. Where is this overhype coming from? It could be seen that the whole ’two rope’ agenda being forced by a vociferous SRT minority. ?

By that, do you think the whole ‘two rope’ hype is just a mountain being made out of a molehill. If so, part of me probably agrees with you!

@Marc. Thanks for taking the bother to reply. The bigger picture is that we can’t just pick and choose what guidance we follow, or even which bits of the guidance. If someone finds themselves in the dock following an electrocution, and the ICOP gets wheeled out, so compliance with section 2.4.7 can be scrutinised, I don’t think a valid defence will be “well yeah, you honour, there is all that, but at least he had two ropes in the tree”. The court won’t give a fruck.

Continuing the GS6 derail. Although section 2.4.7 of the draft ICOP draws on GS6 ( and HSG47, and the Electricity at Work Regulations etc.) I believe it over simplifies the situation by basically implying that all works within 10m requires requires Network Operator involvement. GS6 only requires a process to be followed based on a risk based approach. Does this matter? Does it really matter if the ICOP is more onerous than an HSE guidance document? Surely (you may think) we can simply ignore the ICOP and just work in line with the HSE guidance? Alas no! Check out section 32 of GS6. Section 32 ultimately refers you back to industry specific guidance i.e. the ICOP.