AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Timon, perhaps, at least to some extent, HSE over-simplified the issue by introducing a requirement for 2 systems regardless of how previous incidents / accidents occurred, i.e. a safety net approach...which "on the face of it" is understandable, and hard to argue with (except here! ) Regardless, and respectfully, "we are where we are" and hope the future is positive...and with less falls. ATB Paul

John, thank you for sharing, that was an excellent video, the close up and context shots worked so well. As a matter of interest, and this is a learning point for me (and maybe others), I note the methodology employed a strop, i.e. a 3rd point of connection, at change-overs...is this a C&G assessment requirement? Also, and I know this will probably never "catch-on", but when you refer to "load bearing anchors" the term now used (because IRATA use it and HSE liked/expected it) is "unquestionably reliable" (semantics) Thanks again, I haven't climbed for many years but that video inspired me to consider it ...maybe because of the weather. Regards, Paul

Kevin we did, and mainly my colleague Simon, disagree on several occasions, often supported by feedback via industry consultations ("thank you all"), and pushed back at HSE. Hence the use of the backup is a concession to 2-ropes at all times, as is 1 point of attachment with rope advance on ascent, even though many have adopted the 2-ropes approach. In terms of saying "no", we didn't consider we had grounds to do so because: a) they are the regulator b) IRATA use 2 lines (I know that's deemed as different but essentially a W@H industry) c) Utility Arb did it already (generally) Regards, Paul

Hi Kevin, never perceived as "giving me stick" but the HSE simply don't have that level of detail, and neither do we tbf Sorry, I can't help you anymore here and, tbh, with HSE taking on a new building fire regs role, plus COVID policing etc., we're probably never gonna geddit...even though they did give an undertaking to review how accidents are reported via their 'SIC' codes. Perhaps the Utility industry sector, who are far more likely to record accidents and causation etc., can offer some insight...but of course the majority have been using 2-ropes for some time now and hence won't be falling from trees (tongue very firmly in side of mouth recess.) If any reports do come to my attention via UAG I will be sure to share.. ATB, Paul

Morning Alex, my comment about inexperienced climbers was an assertion, albeit based on a general principle of such, and a response to Kevin's post. The opportunity to "chat with HSE" has effectively passed now the industry guidance is completed (after several rounds of consultations.) Going forward training and assessment has/will change to reflect the change (ICOP2 / TG1 etc.) and we will endeavor to ensure non-Lantra registered training providers / colleges are also made aware. Happy to take the "flak", as always , but "we are where we are" and, respectfully, need to look forward with an open mind...please. Thanks all, keep safe.. Paul

This is what I was referring to. Not 'data' in a statistical sense but some supporting evidence for HSE to pressure the industry to change / improve safety Arboricultural Association - HSE Fall from Height Incidents involving arborists WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <p class= lead bold mb10 >This article contains brief examples of the falls from height reported to HSE under... Also, from an earlier article: However, in 2018, HSE analysed RIDDOR reports for the period April 2017–March 2018 by searching for key words. Although heavily caveated as not being a comprehensive record, the findings were published in an open paper (AFAG 33/02) which was presented at the November 2018 AFAG meeting. According to the analysis, there were 117 recorded RIDDOR-reportable incidents in arboriculture during that period. Of these, 23 were falls from height, of which one was fatal, 6 resulted in fractured vertebrae, 3 multiple fractures, 5 lower limb fractures and fracture to ankle, ribs and wrist.

They did supply some data for industry consumption...will supply tomorrow ?

HSE have data to indicate it does happen, including with Approved Contractors (“no comment” ?), and that’s only available from RIDDOR reports...suggestion being not all are reported. Plus of course inexperienced climbers are more at risk n hopefully additional measures safeguard all...time will tell. Thanks Kevin Paul...”signing off”

Hi Paddy, once TG1 is formally released (2 weeks) training and assessment organisations will have consistent standards to work to and, hopefully, apply consistently. Please see earlier comments about connecting to the harness. Thank you. Paul

Do bridges fail? (I don't know but haven't heard of it commonly.) HSE have accepted 2 independent systems , independently attached e.g. separate karabiners, to a single bridge but two bridges may be a better option...it's for the "proficient operator" to determine in conjunction with the "competent person" (ICOP2 terms). In a nutshell - 2 harnesses, 4 pair of trousers and 6 helmets are not required Paul

Khriss, many business have adopted a policy of 2-ropes..."end of." This is the employers prerogative.

Its always good to "clear the air" in any relationship...and admit defeat (regarding the seat-belt analogy!...I've already 'virtually' kicked my colleague on the shins)

- Agreed - - Agreed (on reflection) - RETRACTED Cheers Paul

Hi Khriss, sorry to read this. The new Technical Guide 1 - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue (TG1) will be available very soon and that will give detailed information, illustratively, of how / what systems would comply. Cautious is good, having the extra security of a backup system / 'fail-safe' "just in case", is better. Please bear with it..."ALL" Thanks Paul

Provided your "two points of attachment" are both load-bearing, i.e. can support you independently, you are not required to have a 3rd point of attachment (lanyard) provided the original ones are not at risk from cutting (obviously you may still use a lanyard to improve your positioning / stability.) If you use 2 ropes, obviously the 2nd one being also able to get to ground is sensible...but not formally required (it is of course required with the first one such that the rescue line need not be employed as self-rescue takes precedent.) Hope this makes sense Cheers, Paul

"Time will tell.." Thanks Kevin, hope you're well. Paul

Hi Matty, your are quite right if you include a pre-installed rescue line (recommended) and use a 2 rope as your backup (although this may not be suitable in every instance.) Good rope management and competent support staff are key (..er, because of course they've always been) to a safe system of work. Check out the Q&A session on the webinar as its raised there too. Cheers Paul

Simply a comparison of change being challenging. Who else would have represented the industry and we did consult on several occasions. HSE wanted '2-ropes' at all times- we achieved a concession for use of a backup system.

Stuart Parry has been promoted within HSE and moved to a different department I believe. He took direction from HSE's W@H specialists and was very robust in his/HSE stance on the matter.

Sorry, can't comment on the belay proposal detail although I'm aware it is an option to use a belay technique. In terms of climbers not being willing or able to comply, I'm sorry but they can and hopefully will in time as more equipment, more techniques develop and it becomes the norm (remember not to do so is breaching the W@H regs, now we have definitive guidance, and any HSE have clearly stated such.) My colleague uses the introduction of seat-belts as an analogy...initially much resistance, and draping it over your shoulder :/, but now quite normal/ natural. Thanks for discussing. Paul

The other end of your ropes acts as a 'backup system' hence compliant with TG1 (soon to be released - see website bookshop for pre orders.) Only your primary system needs to reach the ground not the backup. Yes to latter point too, a HSE concession. Paul

Hi Luke, whatever is best recognised in Canada is what I’d suggest n think Mike has answered it, at least in part, ie ISA Cert Arb + experience, which will be easier(?) / quicker to achieve with the training and quals you proposed. Regards Paul

Hi Luke, certainly the ABC L2 will give you a (UK) recognised qualification but not sure how recognised it is in Canada, but also because you made reference to Certified Arborist which is a US based qualification, through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), available by self study (buy the study guide) or we deliver it as a facilitated learning program (see www.trees.org.uk) The ISA Certified Arborist is pretty much recognised anywhere as a technical qualification/ certification alongside the practical skills qualifications (“tickets.”) Hope this helps. Regards Paul (Arboricultural Association)

Morning Luke, forgive me if I've missed it but if yourintention is to become a Certified Arborist, to better employment prospects in Canada, have you completed the course/exam. If not, one to add to your comprehensive 'practical skills' list. Regards and good luck.. Paul

Equally useful from a technical perspective. From an employability perspective, the practical skills qualifications are considered more valuable tbh, and understandably, but always useful to know “why” you ‘natural target prune’ at tree as well as “how.” ATB Paul