AA Teccie (Paul)

All, "yes" HSE have said they expect 2 ropes...and have done so since 2003/5 So, please think carefully about at what stage in the climb you are 'most at risk', e.g. on access (because you haven't inspected AND loaded the anchor at that point) / when working (because of increased risk when using saws etc.), and ensure you fully meet the requirements. Further than that please await publication of the new Technical Guide and revised ICoP...hopefully Jan. 2020 to better inform and steer your decisions. Regards all, Paul

Sorry Pete, the forthcoming Technical Guide (TTG3) is the 'rigging guide' which obviously will cover anchor point selection, strengths and weaknesses etc. albeit not specific to ADB.

Hi Pete, unfortunately not, it's with Head Office being branded etc. I don't believe this guidance will cover rigging in detail other than advising not to, in general, and only at Stage 1, ie very early on. Hope you're well, Paul

Fireblight or Nectria, or both, maybe :I I'm not aware ADB affects Rowan. Cheers Jim, Paul

Absolutely (re using a MEWP where cannot use a machine nor fell at ground level) and our ‘pending’ guidance aimed primarily at dismantling works states such. cheers Paul

Hi Pete, as I understand it (from Tom Dixon) HSE are observing the other thread on the topic. incidentally Stuart Parry, from HSE, is joining our annual assessors meeting and doubtless the subject will also be “discussed” there too (I will feedback afterwards...if I am able.) Regards Paul

Safety Guidance Note - Felling dead ash - April 2018.pdf

have you seen this FISA guidance Guidance to follow

In smaller Sycamores, often roadside regen, I've noticed many with leaf browning at branch ends and wondered whether grey squirrels may be a factor, i.e. ring barking to access sap flow particularly if thirsty devils cozza drought conditions...dunno Just summat t'throw'in'ta mix appen..

"AA sponsored" ? ...tis above climbing in the risk hierarchy principally because 'prevention' (of a fall) is better than 'minimising' the consequences (of a fall), ie tree climbin, plus it has collective protective measures, i.e. anyone who stands in the bucket is automatically prevented from falling because of engineered controls, i.e. the guard rails. Hence in terms of risk management (AND in relation to the specific hazard of a fall from height) HSE (AA sponsored, ie its in the ICoP) place MEWP before climbing. "Cost" - DISPROPORTIONATE COST = NO NET GAIN IN SAFETY BY SPENDING MORE (and always try to add something else in, e.g. inadequate space / unsuitable ground.) On reflection there are many parallels between MEWPs and 2 ropes, i.e. principles / expectations set against risk assessed justifications...and most people still climb most of the time and use (hire) MEWPs only where there's a commercial gain to be had or where the tree's too dangerous to climb. As a point of reference, and FYI, I have included a copy of the AA's site risk assessment form / template (see W@H justification section.) Cheers, Paul Site risk assessment v4 (June 2019).doc

Gents, the progression of the discussion has now “exceeded my pay grade”, as they say, but I can reassure you the HSE have been made aware of this thread as have my superiors (and they’re very well aware of your major concerns n reasons why.) Hence, for the time being, I’m going to depart from the thread and concentrate on delivering our international conference at Exeter for the next 4-days. All your comments are noted, and valued, even if not responded to directly. Thanks all.. Paul

...plus a signed copy of the updated ICoP!

Hi Mick, you've lost me here (again) please elaborate on what the alternative views / options are?

Hi Carl, respectfully this has all been covered, in detail, and we will feedback to HSE...how much difference it will make I don’t know. Thanks for posting Paul

A distraction technique Khriss

Absolutely agree. Moi bein, muchos gracias mi amigo

My understanding is that as the principle issue related to SRT that's what was concentrated on. No chainsaw work, and certainly no rigging, was undertaken BUT I have forwarded the proposal for such, as raised by Tom and Scots Pine, with my colleague and project lead. Cheers, Paul Hi Ben, "thank you" for posting and clarifying some things here...very useful. Your comparison to gas engineers / CORGI is probably as stretch too far as that is dictated by legislation directly. The better aim would be an IRATA equivalent I believe but this would be principally down to clients to lead on so not much likelihood in domestic sector but certainly construction industry and Local Authority it should be achievable, I would hope (plus of course the insurance industry need to get on board.) Cheers Paul

Interestingly it's a different regulator on the rail network I believe, i.e. ORR as opposed to HSE., but sure they will "sing from the same hymn sheet"

The team did extensive demonstrations of current climbing techniques, including access / descent and a work climb, in effect, to HSE to show that what we do currently, provided employed correctly, is safe and effective...but they disagreed and insisted on a default position employing 2 ropes, particularly for SRT/SRWP. The ICoP (Industry Code of Practice) is currently being re-written to take account of the changes...albeit not as you would like PS You lost me with the reference to Paul McAnn. If that is meant to be me, Paul Smith (and not the other ARBTALK'er with the same name, sorry) then I have climbed, albeit some considerable time ago, and hence my quals are the old 20, 21, 22 suit of NPTCs

Hi Tom, clearly yourself and Scots Pine are thinking along similar lines and, other than perhaps 'on access' to the tree, I quite agree. Again, I will feed this back. Regards, Paul

Hi ??? / "Scots Pine" (sorry, another, memory fail) I actually wasn't present but I understand a whole range of different access techniques, ascents / descents, configurations etc. were demo'd. Whether it was video'd I don't know...I'm not aware it was but I will ask. Regards, Paul

Hi Tom, I will certainly put your proposals to my colleagues, and HSE, but I think the response, at least initially, will be that via risk assessment you are identifying operations / work methods that 'you' consider will introduce a higher level of risk and the process already allows for this in both instances, i.e. tree climbing / work positioning and SRT / SRWP. Regards, Paul

mmmm, may suffice in certain situations when tree climbing / 'work positioning' but don't think it would be deemed adequate for SRT / SRWP

Sorry can’t help here.

Hi Kevin, please understand I’m trying to put some positive aspects across because I don’t see the situation changing here. The level of compliance you referto, ie pan industry all aspects, is highly unlikely to happen and there will be a sector of the domestic market a compliant contractor will never be competitive in (plus they often have to charge VAT which is indicative of a higher turnover...or at least declaration of such.) Surely if the ‘higher’ level of compliance is required in the LA / Construction / Utility etc sectors this would be a step in the right direction.