Bolt

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.

Are you sure this is how everyone is currently working though? I don’t think it is. For work in pretty much ANY garden of a house fed by electric (underground or concentric-service-cable) you can assure me you are currently -and without exception- go off seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance. Really? For any electricity cable, overhead or underground. Impressive. Personally I see this as someone's interpretation of GS6 (+ a spot of hsg47 to demonstrate over-thoroughness ). I see it as far, far in excess of standard procedure for any domestic arb site I have ever been on.

Really great thread, Interesting content and fantastic pictures. I hope your are enjoying putting it together as much as we are from reading it. Have a great Christmas yourself.

It is a serious consideration, but it is out of place. This is related to the The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 not the W@H regs. A work at height ICOP should be focused purely on work at height. Maybe in an ICOP for tower crane operators it has a place. For us, it is no more specific to W@H activities than for a site with only ground work.

2.4.7 Electricity (overhead and underground) If aerial tree works are contemplated within 10m (United Kingdom specific) of power lines (measuring the shortest distance between any parts of the tree and the power line), a risk-based approach must be adopted. In practice this will mean seeking specialist advice and guidance from the owner of the power line before undertaking any work within this distance. Consideration must also be given to operations that are outside of this distance but have the potential to breach it. If work is being carried out within 10m proximity to power lines, the basic principle will be to work with the electricity switched off and/or to establish (and maintain throughout the works) a measured safety or exclusion zone to/from the electrical apparatus. Such arrangements will be set by, and agreed with, the owner of the power line. Separate arrangements and competency levels exist for tree work contractors engaged directly by electricity companies that own or have responsibility for power lines. Principal considerations relating to work in proximity to power lines are: A) because of the different hazards posed, obligations in terms of managing the risks, staff training and competency requirements may differ; B) the first choice for arborists when managing the risks from electricity should be to undertake the works with the lines de-energised; C) any decision to undertake works with lines energised must be justified and documented; D) all parties must be familiar with, and consider, any specific arrangements that the owner of the power line has in place. This may greatly impact upon safety distances and the use of access equipment on a given site; E) all parties must be familiar with, and consider, both industry guidance and any manufacturer’s advice regarding the suitability, and use, of access or climbing equipment and tools near to power lines; F) where arrangements have been made to work with the lines de-energised, it must be ensured work methods are used that avoid damage to the electrical equipment; G) work planning must provide for appropriate levels of supervision and emergency procedures specific to the site and working methods selected. I am shocked that no one is alarmed by this!! Basically, I read this as stating that no W@H can be undertaken within 10m of ANY power line. No mention of voltage.... LV / 400kV all treated the same. No differentiation between construction I.e. concentric service cable treated the same as bare 33kV AND it doesn’t differentiate underground cables. What is more, you get no real option of work method. Basically what you do is speak to the power company and get them to isolate the offending networks, and you only cut once you have adequately demarcated the site. ANY power line within 10m ( that’s 30 feet) of the nearest part of the tree. This section decimates the opportunity to undertake front garden pruning and hedge trimming jobs in tens of thousands of streets up and down the country. Sod ‘2 ropes’.... leave them in the truck!!, If this gets rigorously implemented, you don’t get cut trees in almost any suburban setting. Where’s the outcry?

2.4.10 Welfare Suitable welfare facilities must be identified and available for the duration of the work activity. Arrangements should be recorded and communicated to all parties. These facilities are to include, as a minimum, clean drinking water, hand-washing facilities and sanitary conveniences. The use of public facilities should be a last resort, where no other arrangement is possible. The use of such facilities should not be acceptable where the provision of better facilities would be reasonably practicable. I know everyone is really excited by the 2 rope business, but surely this section is far more of an oddity to the industry. I can understand how this could feature in a general arb ICOP, but it surely has no place in a work at height icop - the sanitary conveniences are not going to be perched up in the canopy are they? Despite being alarmingly out of place, just what mitigation does the average domestic arb have, should the need to demonstrate compliance with this section? Put the location of the homeowners shitter on the risk assessment? I am no conspiracy theorist, but I almost wonder if the 2 rope business is being used as a catalyst to draw attention away from far more problematic (and less glamorous) areas of the ICOP.

I am sure everyone has seen them on larger works such at utility gangs, construction and infrastructure projects etc. I think they are a little more unusual in the ‘5 employees and less’ bracket. (I assume that this is the kind of business Mr Blair operates). Are you working on small domestic arb teams, or larger projects?

Hi @Marc, it would probably be useful if you were able to give more detail on the bits that you think are flawed. i.e. Section xx.x.xx [pasted in paragraph from the icop] I feel that is is inappropriate because of xyz, and personally would prefer it concentrated on abc instead. This way, many of those who agree with your views will be more confident at completing the survey and will be able to add to the strength of your voice. I would have thought that if you want the best chance of getting your voice heard, you are going to need to draw a united front with like minded people who will join with you to get your points across succinctly.

@Stephen Blair was well ahead of the game here. Just wait till the full fallout of the WAHR arb ICOP kicks in....

Dammit. Mine’s a terrier.

The irony of the term SRT was not missed on me. Anyway, having read the ICOP draft, I’m off to dust off the scaffold tower from the back of the workshop. I TOLD them it was going to be useful one day. ’ere,@Khriss, you know your stuff. How do I plan for an adequate rescue from an arbori-scaffolding tower system?

Still struggling here. Was this an SRT scenario? If so, I don’t see how the rope ends get so tangled if they are bagged properly - ok, a bit may pay out as you move about the canopy, but surely it is going to be that much. ....and even if your rope ends do get tangled as you descend, is it that much of a big deal if you are descending down a static line? Sorry if I am missing something obvious.

Just spend your dotage managing a neglected woodland in Bulgaria. That’s where it’s at there days :- )

If IRATA was persuaded to offer nationally accredited training for tree work (along the same lines as their industrial trading) how many employers would take it up? Months of training and recording and thousands of pounds Vs. a couple of weeks and a couple of hundred quid. hmmmmm, tricky.

That does not sound to onerous to me.

Am I correct that the issue is mainly for SRT users then? The impression I was starting to get was that all arb work would require a climber to be attached to 2 ropes long enough to fully descend on.

I blame the European Temporary Work at Height Directive (2001/45/EEC)