AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Timon, they're looking for a failsafe solution which is easy to implement and one that the industry itself concluded bck in 2004, effectively.

Hi Tom, thanks for your post. Firstly, "consultation" - there wasn't anyway. On reviewing the new Technical Guide for tree climbing the HSE picked up on the issue and, essentially, imposed the requirement. Secondly, by their own admission because of the RIDDOR reporting process, and code allocation, it is very difficult to get accurate data on accidents but there have been a spate of recent accidents / incident, including falls from trees, and of course fatal chainsaw cuts (unrelated, directly) but that puts the industry as a whole on the regulator's radar. Thirdly, "getting the nonsense overturn" not sure that's an option really. We have spent considerable time and resource, with industry colleagues, demo'ing why current practices are safe, if employed correctly, but they've chosen to implement higher compliance requirements. I will feed your comments back to my colleague who is the AA lead on the matter...but don't hold yer breath. Regards, Paul

I hope you use barrier cream too...point taken.

Hi Bob, "run off a few copies" of what? If the DRAFT TG1 then it's, in effect, redundant as certain sections are being re-written to reflect the HSE's interpretations and requirements. When you say 'disclaimer', do you mean they use SRT at their own risk, in effect? If so, again I'm not sure this would discharge your employer duties...and again we're getting ahead of ourselves I would suggest. Cheers, Paul

Yep, SOP on SES sites.

I can't argue with that Ian...not that I want to either. Put simply, HSE are initially applying 'rope access' principles to SRT, i.e. back-up / safety line at all times, and at the same time reinforcing the conclusions of research they commissioned in 2004 that 2 ropes are better than 1 which, across the industry as a whole, we essentially chose to ignore and they (HSE) didn't follow through on. PS Do mechanics use spanners anymore

Unlikely every tree firm as some, mainly in Utilities, do use x2 ropes. Your insurance will usually require you to follow industry good/best practice whilst working...and to hold relevant qualifications, and have undertook training, as applicable. Hence the current guidance and training is what you do day-to-day. Once guidance, training and qualifications are updated to reflect these changes, which will take years not months (acknowledged by HSE,) then insurers expectations will change accordingly...I presume. Sorry, I have to caveat this by saying if you're unduly concerned then speak to your insurers.

Not the "only" problem Craig, and not only when removing trees Your points are valid, as described, and in those situations it might be the RA approach to determine 1 rope is safer...plus the 2ndry anchor of course. Cheers, Paul

Hi Ian, thanks for your post. The AA have an ongoing and open dialogue with HSE regarding the implementation. We have seriously (ish) consider the option of rebuffing the regulator but we don't consider this would be productive, nor advisable, and hence will try to ensure implementation is less painstaking...and costly. I guess you'd rather the revolution than the evolution approach don't see any real benefit in crossing swords with the regulator...and they will not budge, and have said as much!

Hi Pete, no need to apologise I quite, quite understand and I too initially ranted...but. Training and development is/are key and this is where all this will begin...with 'new' T&D, involving 2 ropes systems, and hence will take considerable time to implement. The other key aspect to training is mentoring 'on the job' and this too will be required. PS your written words are fine, no problem.

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.