Konstantly

Thanks for the update. Know it's an uphill struggle for you fellas. 

Glad we are being kept informed..

1 hour ago, Rich Rule said:

It is crytic.  He was referring to someone being a C yoU Next Tuesday.

 

Bit harsh I feel.  To whom were you referring?

 

Apparently not obvious. Appolagies. No offence to anyone except the ones mentioned in the comment who as I feel see us all as a bunch of... c u next Tuesdays. Due to the lack of communication and respect that some people/companys within our industry should receive.

Loss of democracy is obviously predominant within this boys club system. We have a voice and unfortunately for most this forum is it for the average working class men. 

Cheers for the opportunity too all who make our small voices possible to be heard in this media..

15 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

I have absolutely no idea what this means, are you writing in some form of long lost tongue?

Maybe so.. Maybe not lost on some...?

20 minutes ago, The avantgardener said:

Why doesn't every Arborist who is free on Tuesday go down to the meeting ‘French Style’ and make things clear to HSE that this thing stops now.

Is it me or dose see you next Tuesday have some sort of hidden message from the arb association ?

As you say anyone who is free too may do if they know the meeting place. I would guess that most arborists are too busy trying to make ends meet in an already competitive market and do not wish to let down their customers who have probably been waiting for over a month due to compliance to local planning authorities  paperwork. 

Such short notice inevitably commands a small unrepresentative response in the flesh..

Too those that can.. Thanks in advance. To those that have been in the know well in advance do us all justice. 

We are rope work professionals that have never been taken seriously and I hope that something good can come of this.. 

Said it before.. Training. Mentorship. A non rushed approach to becoming qualified is needed. We don't have the luxury of tested quantifiable anchorage as in industrial rope access in most of their operations. 

We do have A lot of literature on the subject of biomedical defects and strength in wood too some degree. 

The true professional approach comes from experience passed on. 

If accidents are to be reduced then serious consideration to the time it takes to apricate this should be paramount.

Throwing more rope to literally wrap us all up will not solve the problem. A poor primary  anchor point selection backed up is not a solution. It's an excuse. An inferior work positioning leading to rope severing is lazy and increased with fatigue due to time constraints amplified by the use of two working systems..

I'm sure I saw one on the market that has the option of opening both ways.

If I find it I will post a link

Tripe fungus maybe? 

On 20/01/2020 at 16:05, Marc said:

@AA Teccie (Paul)

 

So if the overwhelming response is finding that the two rope working is not practical will the ICOP be revised to show this, or was the consultation for no reason? Would you be able to share the level of response and the percentage of those that felt two rope working is a workable new standard?

Two ropes is simply not an achievable standard work method, not unless you significantly raise the overall standards of training and practical experience in the industry, and even then the predominant anchor point would have to be one but with two ropes. There has been no research/demonstration of how this can be practically applied other than that initially carried out by the HSE which is still relevant.

 

We have been taught for decades on one rope, undergone training and judged competent on one rope , my entire company is based on those trained and proficient using one rope, I understand what is going on and still desperately cling to the hope that our voice will speak up.

 

We will now be put at a commercial disadvantage and frankly to say tough just deal with it, is very unfair. I am one of 3 local AAAC approved contractors, there are another 15 local outfits who are not part of the AA many of whom are not on this forum, or have no care for compliance, standards or meeting the revised ICOP, they just quietly, efficiently and safely get on with their work.

 

I cannot believe that overwhelmingly contractors are happy with this, but if they are i'll tow the line and see what happens. Otherwise we will continue to quietly, safely, efficiently and to a high standard continue our work. 

Well put Marc.

Unfortunately for the most part it is the insurance companies that will gain from all of this mess at the moment.

Non compliance = get out clause.

I have performed work safely and in a professional manner (most of the time) with non compliment systems and done so in the knowledge that if I had an accident any insurance company would get out of any pay out due to me. 

Obviously I'm speaking in the regards of injury to myself due to poor work positioning/anchor point failure. 

Not endangering my colleagues or clients of theirs.

The non compliment system is ropewrench without a ce marked tether ect.

The driving about in vehicles overloaded is just seemingly a given for a large majority of us so non compliment in that respect too.

Yes I would like to see a day when some sense is paramount within our industry and if sensible I will adopt the methodologies. 

I can see the benefits of using two ropes and two independent anchor points in some situations and obviously have done so when I felt it was necessary. 

I won't repeat other points that I have already made on this..

Their are far more pressing issues too concern ourselves with as an industry.

I am left wondering if we dig deep enough will we find that the hse have had pressure mounted upon them from the insurance industry due to the nature of riddor reports rather than just their own conclusions? 

Obviously so I would venture...

A more robust independent research into the implications needs to be carried out.

I do believe that their are a great number of rope work professional's within arboricultuure and company's who wish to develop their status as such to the full. An up hill battle at the moment with current legislation that allows fully (trained) people to jump into the compliment status in just a few months.

The result is obvious...

Their is a big difference between being training and being competent to a professional standard.

It takes time and mentorship I believe.

1 hour ago, Stubby said:

Do you have to use 2 moisturizers ? 

Depends if your a two handed wanker or not..

6 hours ago, Dan said:

Well how about everyone who is an AA member should email them to say they will not renew their membership over this matter. That may help motivate them to fight our corner! 

Yes I would say that voting with non renewal and non compliance is the only way to actually make someone take notice. 

The AA have proven their incompetence one too many times for my liking. 

Move over and get an ISA accreditation if it's important for business. 

Time to give them the rods..

I'll keep it short. 

What a joke..

The arborictural  association! Representative of our industry. Misrepresentation of our industry since at least 2005 to my limited knowledge. What a bunch of £££ grabbing fools. (Imo). Or are all the company's who have given their hard earned money fools?.. I don't think so. 

I am just a lowly freelance arborist who works for quite a few AA acrededted company's as well as others who are holding standards high without the (badge of honour) thrown out by the AA..

If you want to read my opinions on this twin rope topic you can find it hear..

I am wondering why all AA acrededted companys don't just tell the AA to go fu$k themselves! ?

If I was a business person I would have done so year's ago. Wtf do they do for us? 

Proven disregard and misunderstanding  for wahr is the very least... 

Now we all face the consequences of the backlash of the hse due to them not picking up on this failure and subsequently having legislation pushed without robust investigation 

As previously published 2004 papers (hse funded)  that had impact at the time should have had at least some transparency in the current (draft) icop.

Not going to go over previously well put points by many people.. 

 I still feel and know that I take my and any team I work with hse issues  in the highest regard. I have compiled to many regulations (that make sense) this one does not! Over the time I have been involved in this industry.

  I would urge everyone to not consider this as a viable option to safe working practices within the rope access, work positioning within treework/arboricultuure. 

We are not rope access we are very unique. 

We should be given at least the opportunity to defend ourselves (independently) 

Rant over.. for now...

#fata 

#noncompliance 

1 hour ago, Marc said:

I am disappointed, obviously I’d prefer we remain as a single line standard, as it is in the rest of the world.

I will tow the line where appropriate. But ultimately my disisions for my own hse will boil down to the few years of experience and training have left me with. 

I have developed and moved with my climbing techniques over the years. Have adopted and modified these to make work position more efficient and safe (imo) if this icop made sense I would adopted and integrate it too. 

I will read and digest the icop.

 scotspine1 made a shed load of applicable points in his previous post.

I will not be forced into a methodology of working practices that I see as flawed in the most part.

Long way to go with this yet...

1 minute ago, Marc said:

Danny have you read the current draft of the icop! There is as it stands no scope to bin off a second line with SRTWP, climbing on DdRT (MRT) there is scope to justify it through risk assessment...

I suggest you make you thoughts on this known.

No I haven't read it yet Marc. 

Will give it a look.

I think you can guess my response ??

3 hours ago, scotspine1 said:

Anyone setting out to work in the tree using a twin line system needs to be aware of a potentially dangerous situation which could arise from using twin lines. 

 

Example -

 

A climber accidently cuts himself high up in the tree. He still has the ability to self rescue and descend out of the tree to seek urgent emergency first aid. 

 

As the bleeding climber descends - the trailing ends of his twin lines become entangled beneath him midway through the descent severely restricting his progress to the ground, trapping him at this point. 

 

In this scenario the climber could bleed out. 

 

 

 

.

 

See your points.

I  am sure the HSE also do and when the new fully revised documentation is made available to us all it will have plenty of scope for us all as professional tecnisions of wah to have the caveat to bin off this method when seen as and justification is made from the operative to do so.

The many posts I have seen of two anchor points on other forums have frankly been comical in the regards of anchor point failure. 

I for one will use this technique as an when I see fit.  As I have to good effect when I climbed on DdRT. I have little (but some) use for it on SRWP and again not employed it much.

Said it before.. HSE your barking (yapping) up the wrong trees....

1 minute ago, Jake Andrews said:

 

I don’t think we will get a direct response from HSE but just a updated ICOP and tech guide from AA to work to. I don’t think they are giving much info on it as they are likely to be working it out themselves. Dire situation really.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately so. 

Any IRATA level 3 qualified operatives out their who wish to input into this topic?

As previously mentioned rescue from an ASAP or similar device will need extra training. Generally in rope access work I believe that a level 3 has to be in close proximity to other operatives in case the need for rescue arises? 

If we are to transfer these methods to tree work dose this mean that a secondary rescue line installed within the tree will still be applicable? Or will two climbers have to be in the tree at all times too? 

More ropes, more targets another person wah... the list can go on..

If the hse are paying any attention to this topic can we please have some input too? 

We all seem to be stabbing in the dark towards a non existent light at the end of the tunnel atm.

A little light to aim towards Would be nice...

As comments previously outlined, putting climbers into a scenario where cutting a secondary life line is thought off will be a huge HSE issue for a person who is already in a state of shock and confusion, especially if that person is thinking of self rescue.

Use of Asap looks great on paper. In reality?? 

If this set of regulations is actually being seriously considered and to be implemented then HSE have to make the reasons more accessible to us all. 

We need to see justified reasonable response to our concerns from the powers that see fit to have our best concerns in their hands. 

Having a voice is pointless if it is not heard or responded to. The points made by many on this and other forums are valid and should be treated as so. 

On 22/09/2019 at 08:17, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Absolutely (re using a MEWP where cannot use a machine nor fell at ground level) and our ‘pending’ guidance aimed primarily at dismantling works states such.

cheers

Paul 

Thanks Paul. I also read that ground level felling should be approached with caution, especially with the use of wedges.  

Just putting it out their. When I go for work positions (even SRWP) in some instances I use my free hand (afforded by the use of one knot system) to stabilise myself and pull myself to an optimal position. This is also a technique used in IRATA when moving across spans of 1.3m and further in level 1 into level 2. I'm not clear on how this will be implemented when having to manage two systems?

 I may have misunderstood IRATA and not quoted sufficiently. Please feel free to correct me. 

On 18/09/2019 at 11:04, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Safety Guidance Note - Felling dead ash - April 2018.pdf 573.67 kB · 42 downloads

Thanks Paul. Have heard that hand cutting should be last resort. Can't remember where I saw the info so this is great and clarifies what I am saying to people I work with as we are increasingly seeing and removing trees that i suspect have it. 

I would expect that the use of MEWP is even more imperative at risk assessment stage if felling is not an option. 

4 hours ago, Khriss said:

I would really need more practise on Static rope Marc, to make it look good ( ain't commercially climbed fr 4 yrs ) this was a demonstration so that the observers could see wot it means to do. But I have no hesitation in using it fr WP chainsaw cutting. It WILL access all points on a tree crown. K

Would be more than happy to travel to demo the benefits of SRWP on your next demo day (if the price is right ?) 

Seriously though..

Sounds as if you are making great headway in making your voice heard to those that may not have as great an understanding of day to day issues within the treeworker rope technician scenarios.

I am interested in seeing the proposed system put into practice.

Incorporating it safely and efficiently within a bunch of everyday scenarios. 

  As I see the pitfalls of as previously pointed out in previous posts, not mentioning the fact that the potential in some scenarios a secondary load/shock loaded anchor may not be available in the dynamic unpredictable organisms we work with and if they are they may introduce us to as said a shock load.

The systems we all generally employ at present time for anchor point selection obviously relay upon informed/educated decisions. 

Anchor point failure can be safeguarded with the correct deployment of a good SRWP understanding and back up that is ill afforded in a DdRT configuration. 

The broken record.......Education not legislation  

The ability to share loads throughout the structure of a tree to achieve a safer working position.

You will reduce the angles of your work position thus reducing a potential of greater pendulum swings. 

The ability of having a backed up system should your anchor point fail.

In the right configuration a redundant base anchor/retrieval end of your TIP could be used as an access line for accent to a TIP for rescue.

I believe that with the right training and acquired knowledge that SRWP is and can be a lot safer and more ergonomic than DdRT.

As with everything knowledge is key..   

Who defined the way we work as rope access as apposed to work positioning as was? (HSE, AA, other)

Seems that this kicked this whole s*@t storm off as well as some stats thrown in.

Not trying to lay blame, just would like to see the documentation and reasoning behind this all. If available would someone who knows where to find it be kind enough to let us all know so that we can all read and have informed comments on the matter.     

As far as I've read the AA with other notable climbers who I'm sure will have put on a good demo showing thatour current practices are safe (to a point). They will have put our case across but fell on deaf ears, poked out eyes and the inability to see reason beyond a 2 separate anchor/rope system.