krummholz

There we go! Some facts at last. And what a journey we've been on to get here. I'm guessing you don't do NPTC assessing for tree climbing and aerial rescue any more then either. I will at some point be asking the AA about all this (kind of why I hoped that people would be sharing their experiences and solutions for compliance), and a few other oddities and contradictions in the TG1. The AA technicians don't seem super active on here though, and I don't have to wonder why.

(Assuming you meant to say "mandatory Aerial Rescue Practice") No I never. I didn't say that I do and I didn't say that I don't. Again, I asked a question about how other folk were doing it and how they were finding compliance with the requirement as laid out in TG1.

I'm not "bigging up" aerial rescue practice as mandatory, it IS mandatory according to the TG1. I've never claimed I'm doing it. Look back at my opening post, my original questions were around whether or not people were doing it, how they were structuring it, and their experiences of it. As I stated, I am glad that there's now a requirement to practice it because I've thought that it's sorely lacking in UK arb. So you've risked assessed out all aerial rescues - good luck with that, I won't be queuing up to get the chance to work with you. No - you have disagreed with me and many others already, that's fine. It's just that your obtuseness is swamping other stuff that folk might have to say. Plus as the OP I feel obligated to engage with posters and I've got other stuff to get on with. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and I'm totally fine with that. I just don't really understand why you need to convince folk that aerial rescue itself is useless. Maybe you could just start another thread where we can discuss the merits and demerits of Aerial Rescue itself?

This is a public forum where people who work with trees (and some who don't) come together to exchange opinions and experiences. It's not a tribunal, no one is submitting evidence to you and you're not entitled to see anyone's "data" (though if you show me yours I'll show you mine). By now though we've established that you're such a boss climber with loads of experience who's never had to do an aerial rescue, or even ever heard of one happening, and you only work with super competent and similarly experienced people, so you definitely never need to practice AR. Can you leave the folk who do want to discuss it to get on with it and stop drowning the thread in your piffle?

Exactly! Something to think about when everyone's recovered.

I just wondered where your keen interest in TG1 came from, your profile suggested that you're based in France.

@5thelement Do you live and/or work in the UK?

Surely we all know that depending on the Class and type of chainsaw trousers, and the size of chainsaw being used, that chainsaw ppe doesn't remove the risk of injury, only mitigates it. And maybe they weren't wearing PPE. They still needed an aerial rescue, they got one from a prepared and competent rescue climber, and it probably saved their life.

I'll leave it as long as I like thanks. This isn't a comprehensive survey of compliance with the WAHR and the ICoP/best practice in UK arb - I asked a question in the hope that folk would have useful and interesting things to say.

Would you support (better) regulation then?

Calm down dearest, the threads only been open for 5 days. Some people don't check Arbtalk for weeks at a time. You'd be daft to draw the conclusions you're making from a handful of replies here.

Aerial rescue practice isn't dangerous, or at least shouldn't be. It's risky. And those risks can be mitigated. It's not an unimportant consideration but the benefits of practicing it justify doing it. I'd be interested to see the incident report or anything you have about the fatality during training if you could find it?

That doesn't address my point. And while I disagree with you, you're right one on thing, this is tediously boring. I'll do it the way I want it. I only asked a specific question about aerial rescue practice, and wasn't expecting to be derailed into defending aerial rescue itself. But this is Arbtalk after all!

As @dangb93 said earlier, the ideal would be to have at least 2 people on site capable of doing the work, both for rescue and for a general high level of competence and efficiency in planning and executing the job at hand. The climber/groundy dichotomy is a bad one - yes there are loads of folk who are great on the ground and don't climb, but I disagree that just because you're a competent climber you should be up climbing every day. If you're an Arborist you should have a broad skill level and high level of competence across all aspects of the work. This weekend thousands of people will break speed limits and not wear seat belts, and (proportionally) mostly without incident. Doesn't mean they should be doing it or that it's OK to, or that if something goes wrong that the consequences won't be significant.

And wouldn't a stepping stone towards this be regular aerial rescue practices? Maybe at least every 6 months or less? Wouldn't that be a way in which someone who's just passed their Tree Climbing and Rescue ticket 3 or 6 or 12 months ago to have more time in the tree, and an aid to progression?

But a rescue attempt should improve the chances of survival and recovery, like any first aid received! I agree that if a rescue needs to be undertaken after a catastrophic injury then the liklihood of survival is very low, but it will never be zero. It will be zero if no rescue is attempted or even available! And a trained and ready rescuer will get the casualty down quicker than one that us under trained and under prepared. I genuinely don't get this "oh I've cut myself badly and for whatever reason I can't self rescue, guess I'll just die then" fatalism, as though there were literally no other options or nothing to work towards - there is, and it's right there in Section 16.2 of TG1. Yes you need good rope work from the groundies, but why are the 2 mutually exclusive? Surely you'd want both?

Neither of which will be a problem any more when you've bled out after an accident chogging down Mrs Magoos leylandii for Cut'n'Run for £150/day. I'm genuinely surprised by the derailment of a thread asking about practicing aerial rescue. I thought it would be uncontroversial. Has the industry always been a race to the bottom?

Again, surely this is a problem? Various posters have stated that they often work without a designated rescue climber or one they know would be unlikely to effectively rescue them. What's the cost in walking away from work that will put you in an unacceptable risky position? A days wage? Versus loss of life or limb? You wouldn't work for someone without professional Insurances, so what's the harm in asking about the last time they practiced aerial rescue? A rising tide lifts all boats

I guess that's a relevant but seperate issue, but I agree.

Surely there is the opportunity (expectation?) for the 6 monthly aerial rescue practices to be self led - everyone has their aerial rescue ticket and so is a competent and certificated climber, so at the moment there's no requirement for a trainer to be present. However, without any guidance from the AA on the 6 monthly practice, busy managers and business owners with stretched resources are even less likely to schedule the practice even though we've been told in the TG1 it's mandatory. Given that it's mandatory I also wonder what the implications of NOT doing the practice or having any records of it are?

OK I stand corrected on the specifics of the timeline of natural fibre ropes and leather harnesses, but my broader point about safety standards and good practice progressing over time still stands. So anecdotally you've never heard of an aerial rescue taking place, or of a fatality occurring in a rope and harness - that's good, you sound like a lucky person to have around. But both of those things have occured and will continue to occur in the industry, right? As in they're documented and reported (and likely under reported as most accidents and near misses are).

And that's a bad thing, right? How do we make the reality one where more people go home from work uninjured and alive? 40 years ago the reality was that people used 3 strand natural fibre ropes and leather belt harnesses with no leg loops, and probably didn't wear chainsaw trousers or even helmets. Techniques, equipment, legislation and guidance have all progressed and safety has improved, and that's a good thing. Things didn't improve by accepting that things were bad or sub optimal.

OK so expect to self rescue? Wouldn't it be better if there was also a good reasue plan and competent, adequately resourced rescuer? If one of the possible outcomes that you can foresee from the next bit of work you're about to do is death, then maybe the better option is to come down?

TG1 states that you can do away with the "backup" 2nd line during a rescue if possible, but you could use 2 lines for a rescue if you wanted to and it made you feel safer, and were quick enough that the rescue would be effective. This wasn't meant to be another thread moaning about 2 rope working and the WAHR, there's many other threads for that if that's what you're into.

So you're saying prepare for self rescue, and rig safely and conservatively, and don't one hand the chainsaw?