AA Teccie (Paul)
-
Posts
3,533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by AA Teccie (Paul)
-
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.
-
Can’t see how this particular situation will/can change but have to await the tech guide for definitive answers.
-
In principle I agree, currently, but when the Sky TV engineer turns up to replace her Sky dish that’s a very different matter (acknowledged a company implemented rule but..)
-
Hi, it was funded by the AA research grant and the findings informed the Draft technical guidance which when presented to HSE was challenged by their W@H specialist. Ben was part of the demo team we pulled together for the HSE but it didn’t change their minds unfortunately
-
The ‘S’ is stationary...or is it stationery
-
That’s guidance on the tree work section of the HSE website, in relation to the W@H regs, but this will doubtless change in the near future given their updated interpretation/opinion
-
Of course it’s all down to “policing”, to make it effective, and that’s the HSEs role not the AAs, plus clients, in particular commercial clients/ LAs, and insurance industry “buy in”, but could increased industry regulation not potentially be a positive thing in terms of further marginalising non-compliant contractors? (an interesting viewpoint perhaps) Someone previously mentioned about IRATA and the ‘rope access’ industry and I think this takes us one step nearer to that...after all it was HSE scrutinising SRT and determining it as rope access which triggered all this. Sorry, on an assessment all day now so can’t reply until late in the day (I hope they’re not SRT’ing on the work site inspection ??) cheers Paul
-
It’s not just anchor point failure, albeit that is one of the causes, and a common one apparently, it’s various reasons resulting in people falling out of trees. Hence HSE have introduced/re-introduced a basic requirement that they believe will Improve the situation...n fundamentally it’s difficult to argue against (believe me.)
-
Don’t know the background to that one particularly Kevin. I think the Association got involved via the HTA regarding plant biosecurity.
-
Put simply, this is because, as far as HSE are concerned, SRT/SRWP is equivalent to ‘rope access’ and hence subject to a higher level of compliance under W@H Regs.
-
Hi Kevin, the Association is part of the ‘Horticultural Group.’
-
Hi Timon, need to await publication of Technical Guide 1 which will far better inform decision making and practices than my ramblings. This will hopefully be available in the next few months after the ICoP has been revised to reflect the changes.
-
In all cases, as I understand it, HSEs start point is x2 ropes. Your assertion is correct.
-
What HSE have said is 2 independent lines on 2 independent anchors =
-
Having got a better grasps of the situation myself today, clarifying things with my colleague at Head Office who has actually been leading on the project. If you are on a non-SRT/SRWP system, and you can clearly demonstrate that x2 lines is not "reasonably practicable" because of, for instance, very dense canopied trees and increased time, equipment needs, cost etc., which should be recorded, then you can proceed as before, in essence. However, if you are on an SRT/SRWP system you will need to clearly demonstrate it creates a higher level of risk to personal safety and absolute record it. Hope this helps, but still the assumption going forward is 2 ropes (+ lanyard when cutting) 'justifying' why if you're only using one (and with a much stronger justification, based on increased personal safety, if SRT'ing.) Paul
-
No cutting was involved. The demo, as I mentioned, was about what we do currently and why, if done correctly, it is deemed safe and effective.
-
And we arranged a demo involving several climbers to show how what we do currently is safe if employed correctly by competent people...but still they insist on 2 ropes. Whilst my colleague, Simon, didn’t sleep rough at any stage, or at least not that I’m aware of, he did have several sleepless nights given the gravity and impact of the situation.
-
I/we too believe the HSE 'W@H specialists' have been too simplistic in their approach and not really considered the difference in the structures climbed / descended here but they view SRT/SRWP as 'rope access' = higher level of compliance = 2nd line Gonna give it a break now n pickup again tamarra. Cheers, Paul
-
Evening Carlos, apologies for delay. Apparently SRWP is allowed but, as with SRT, will be subject to the higher level of compliance under W@H Regs = backup / safety line at all times. Cheers, Paul
