AA Teccie (Paul)
-
Posts
3,516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by AA Teccie (Paul)
-
Hi Pete, If any climbing line came close to the chipper I'd be questioning the ground crew very robustly. "Reality" will change...in time, as will expectations. Sorry sounds very philosophical but things do change over time...I remember being trained to free-climb up the tree and then to tie in
-
Hi Andy, 2 anchors / ropes from start to finish...the lanyard only when working.
-
Maybe...'IF' the side strop is used. Their intention is to introduce a failsafe into the system by default and still use the secondary anchor when working / cutting.
-
Hmmm, not sure legally where that really leaves you. be mindful of the issue but await publication of TG1(hopefully very soon) and use that to inform decision making and practices
-
Perhaps not in relation to the potential for anchor point failure but accidental detachment from one system, or cutting through of one system etc.
-
The expectation / 'default position' from HSE is that 2 independent ropes and anchors will be used as the norm. However, the process, as previously, will allow for a risk based / assessed approach and were it can be clearly demonstrated that a 2nd line will create a higher level of risk, perhaps because of entanglement in a narrow crowned / fastigiate type tree (???), then the 'reasonably practicable' argument can be presented (they will expect this to be documented on a site-by-site / tree-by-tree basis I expect and, unlike currently, will not accept climbing on a single line as the norm.) Thanks for your post, Paul
-
apologies, I will pickup any further posts in the morning. Paul
-
No apology needed Timon, we too have ranted. It may be an attempted 'fail-safe' for poor decisions but if it means climbers fall out of trees fewer times then surely it;s worth it.
-
Thank you, I wasn't aware it had been published.
-
Hi Ian, in part because they can, and because other sectors of the industry do already so demo'ing it can be done (these are their comments.) Plus, fundamentally, and perhaps simplistically, as several of the accidents they cited involved anchor point failures, the more safe-gaurds the better. regarding rescue situations, arguably you may have more options availbale to you...appen. Hope your're well.. Paul
-
I understand your frustrations, believe me, but, in effect, the law says so..
-
Fair comment Kevin but HSE, I expect, will be pragmatic in their application of the changes.
-
This reply troubles me. This change is imposed by HSE, consequentially to our consultation on TG1, we resisted it and did all we could to demo that current systems, if employed correctly, are safe. We are an industry body / trade association 'they'are the regulator = TOP TRUMPED!
-
Hi Kevin, I think the context is out of kilter here a little. The 'example' relating to MEWPs is to demonstrate that as industry approach / practice changes so does machinery and equip,emt to reflect such. I acknowledge accidents happen involving MEWPs happen too but hopefully as they become better designed to tree work that will reduce. Yep, if you wanna be compliant from tomorrow = 2 ropes to climb. Sorry, rushed reply as my Horlicks going cold.. Paul
-
A valid point Ed and one we are contiuning dialogue with HSE on, not that we expect them to change their opinion but it may help future decisions.
-
We consulted HSE on a draft of TG1 (climbing guide replacement) and they picked up on it there in relation to SRT effectively being 'rope-access' and thereby requiring a backup/safety line at all times (as per W@H regs) and then reviewed single rope climbing as well referring back to 2004 research (which concluded 2 ropes...unless risk assessment says higher risk, which was never implemneted.) We did demo day for HSE inc their W@H specialist to show how we access and work safely on single lines, with 2nd attcahcment when working, but they weren't happy. Sorry Mick, longwinded reply Paul
-
Yes Mick, I am saying that...because that is what the HSE have decreed. Much of the utility industry sector already operates this way.
-
the HSEhave had very detailed demonstrations by the industry prior to making a decision about what systems are acceptable / compliant and what aren't. Effectively, when working, you will still require to have an additional 'tie in', i.e. a 3rd connection...thats gonna be hard to stomach.
-
Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases. In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months. Does this help clarify things...a little? Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well Paul
-
Mick, why do you always have an aggressive tone to your posts....maybe it's that French militant effect I too would suggest 'Parish Mags' etc....and of course ARB Approval to "stand out from the tree surgery crowd" who provide the other x7 quotes PS Was in Pontivy, Brittany at the weekend, a lovely town (don't know whereabouts you are tho.)
-
Take it you're all aware of the 'Haynes' manual, and not the one for your Ford Escort XR3i...or Morris Marina (my first one ) See Arboricultural Association - Haynes Tree Owners’ Workshop Manual WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members... Authored by Tony Kirkham (Kew) and Kenton Rogers (i-Tree)
-
Hopefully you've got a land-based college nearby with a good 'arb' library
-
Yep, usually in junction with a land based college, eg Capel Manor, but sometimes utilising alternative training providers. informally, many businesses develop people “on the job” n some larger employers, eg Gristwood n Toms, have their own in house training n development procedures. paul
-
'Secondary ?' Root growth removal
AA Teccie (Paul) replied to GrahamFramhii's question in Homeowners Tree Advice Forum
Possibly. My concern would be that the original rooting system has asphyxiated / died off because of the raised ground levels and the 'new' roots are sustaining the tree Can you construct a raised bed and retain them maybe Paul -
Does anyone know what this is?
AA Teccie (Paul) replied to sandspider's topic in Tree Identification pictures
Swedish Whitebeam (Sorbus 'intermedia', a cross between rowan and whitebeam)...I think
