Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stewmo

  • Rank
    Senior Member, Raffle Sponsor 2015

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. the chicane is also a much slicker setup...
  2. And will be for a long time yet [emoji106]
  3. It was Tony Lane who wrote that report. Done years and years of climbing. He isn’t employed by HSE.
  4. wahreport.pdf Here's the report...page 5 I think for the clarification of work positioning vs rope access: Quote: In work positioning the rope advances or moves with the climber. In rope access the rope remains static and the climber advances up and down the rope
  5. Ultimately we don't know, we're making educated guesses. But I can't put either MRT or SRT into one or the other, work positioning or rope access.... unless it is defined by moving or static rope as it said in the document. I can climb to my TIP and then work either MRT or SRT. I can throwline in and then work MRT or SRT. I can climb the tree on either, I can ascend on either. There is nothing that clearly distinguishes the two techniques, that says this is this and that is that. The only scenario that cannot be replicated by the other is throwlining in and then base tying for SRT access. If this is the problem then why not say in the ICoP...when accessing the crown with a base tie this is rope access and a second line is necessary.... And thus.... In the WaH regs it says a work positioning system must ‘include a suitable backup system’ and for rope access and positioning techniques ‘a system comprises two separately anchored lines’ Can you categorically tell me what the difference is between the two? What is a 'suitable backup' that isn't two 'independent anchored lines'? Well it is a direct quote from the WaH regs isn't it. Perhaps to cover their backs from a legislative point of view. I get what you are saying and that is why the whole thing is fudge from a user's perspective. But for me there is a difference to 'being tied in twice at all times' and having two TIPs. Being tied in twice at all times will massively reduce the incidents of falling from a tree, if an anchor fails or a line is cut, or descent off the end of a rope. Having two TIPs won't reduce it any further and will be more awkward, more tiring, more complicated, more time consuming etc.
  6. The sticking point for me on this has been why is there any difference between so called MRT and SRT when working the tree? There doesn't seem to be any practical difference in risk to me, and SRT seems considerably more practical in many situations. So I was digging about for definitions and found a Working at Height report by Tony Lane (from 2004!) HSE document that clarified that work positioning is with a moving rope, and rope access is with a static or stationary rope. This is prior to SRT being used by many, if any, climbers in a work situation. HSE has made this distinction for working at heights. I’m presuming they are not inclined to change it, but this is what needs to change for us to have alignment of techniques within our industry. Is there other industries that use both mrt and srt? From inside ours, we can’t see any practical difference between working with a moving rope or a stationary rope but perhaps other industries tend to stick with one and therefore it was an easy way to delineate different ways of working? I don't know For us it makes no sense to have different standards for different rope techniques accessing the same structures (trees) in essentially the same way. Single rope, single anchor point with localised backup. SRT needs to classed as work positioning in tree work. BUT For all those slating the AA, with all this in mind, I can’t see what else the icop can say. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s a bureaucratic farce, but in trying to understand the whole situation this is what I have found. And thus.... In the WaH regs it says a work positioning system must ‘include a suitable backup system’ and for rope access and positioning techniques ‘a system comprises two separately anchored lines’ I wonder how many people would have gotten into SRT if from the outset we would have had to have had two lines, as was expected by HSE essentially from 2005, if not earlier. I reckon most would have said it wasn't worth the hassle and all the effort into developing techniques and kit may never have happened.
  7. That's about it really isn't it. Still, there will always be rules and there will always be interpretations....
  8. Go on, what did he say then.....being in the 'fuck off' camp i'm interested
  9. I agree with what you are saying with respect to work positioning. It seems like a very workable solution to be tied in twice and one that I have felt from the beginning of this whole debate is the solution. What are your thoughts on rope access to the crown where currently we shoot up one rope and ascend? Will you put two ropes in ? Thanks
  10. Think you know more than me mate [emoji106]
  11. I think Honey's will splice any rope so that why I was surprised the didn't offer it....anyway just got on with buying some non-ce cougar again....i want a splice! I think Drenaline has a cover and a core so that makes it kernmantle?


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.