Konstantly

How many roofers do you see blatantly ignoring the HSE, no doubt plumbers and sparkies too behind closed doors. Bet the building industry have similar problems with the HSE not enforcing yet more legislation that companies with good intentions adhered too. We tend to make a little more noise than them and attract nosey neighbours, thus attention.. yet still the cut corner cutters get away with it. I think someone pointed it out already. More companies will just give all the accreditation the rods and get away with it.. get fined.. fine. Will have saved the money from not spending it on training and further development.... is this the way to go? No... name n shame. Super grass. Self regulation? Most likely not. More focus on training and further development to a safe working practices on the tools? Much more preferable... Agree with your points. I'm sure in the case, would an extra rope on a separate anchor prevented the fall from cut line/failure of anchor point then the awnser would be yes in a court inquest. The question is why did the anchor failure occur or rope get cut? Surely a better understanding of force impact on said points and better work position with saw management should be looked at as an option at training and initial mentorship times. Not having these occurrences in the first instance needs to be addressed. Not tangling us all up with more legislation and ropes that will make work more complex than it need be. Not to mention other valied points made elsewhere in the thread.

Agree with your points. I'm sure in the case, would an extra rope on a separate anchor prevented the fall from cut line/failure of anchor point then the awnser would be yes in a court inquest. The question is why did the anchor failure occur or rope get cut? Surely a better understanding of force impact on said points and better work position with saw management should be looked at as an option at training and initial mentorship times. Not having these occurrences in the first instance needs to be addressed. Not tangling us all up with more legislation and ropes that will make work more complex than it need be. Not to mention other valied points made elsewhere in the thread.

Great. Thanks Dave J/John. Can you publish the rigours risk assessment for us all to peruse over? I know that you have not directly upload this but the info you may have available may give others a chance to have a collective input..

Easy! One step at a time.. sheesh ?

It's all about the timing. May need something slightly thicker than a throw line to safely base tie it once has been lobbed into the crown.

Still would have an issue with dynamic re-direct forces so not as bomb proof as afforded with SRWP imo. Oh well...

Looks like initially assent would be achieved as standard SRWP methods then utilizing the second hitchclimber system as would with a re-direct. Yea I'm lucky if I can isolate one shot too. Massive pain to isolate two I agree if that is indeed how the set up is required/intended to be used.

Going to have to have a mega long rope mind.. lots of re attachments through work stations. Potential for errors? Just throwing it out their... not seen or used this set up before..

Long descends to a work station I guess? Not studied it yet as kids are demanding my attention.. looks interesting at a glance though.

Just seen this set up on Instagram. ?

The minor point you make.. I see a lot of companies justification for not using a MEWP under the banner of cost... In a court of law. Hard to justify without other mitigating reasons I would think. The point being as risk assessment evolution goes using SRWP could fall into the same category as to justify its use as opposed to two ropes and separate anchor points. Cost through extra time taken though.. Won't wash as Tom D points out. How do we move forward from this potential position we will be facing? Hopefully we will all be kept in the loop when the AA are brought in to help re write the book.. As said we need to think of reasons why two ropes and separate anchor points will make what we do some of the time more dangerous. Self rescue is a big one imo..

Dam sure I don't agree with the lanyard style thing. Just trying to see if their are alternatives to a two line system. As this I believe to be a poor solution given the structures we work on As TIMON points out arguments in a court of law are hard to justify.. We all said before we will all say it again.. training, education and time..

Top anchor TIP on SRWP system utilizing a redununt base anchor as Chamski pointed out on the other thread, that will act as a back up in the case of anchor point failure. This will obviously have it's draw backs and need managing at risk assessment level. However I do see it as an alternative to two ropes independent in the tree in some situations. In the scenario of your main anchor line being cut then I wonder if a system where a sort of short line like a lanyard could be installed on the climbing line a few meters above the SRWP set up. This could possibly be a type of metal flipline. It would follow the climber on and need tending as with a second line, this could be a achieved with a long teather sort of like the lockjack. Obviously their are complications with this but possibly a viable alternative to two separate rope systems? Still though I would like to know the situations in which rope severing has lead to injury or death and the use of a second line would have prevented this. Was it kick back, poor work position, impact from falling or lowered material. At the end of it all I think better education and mentorship time will ultimately make for a safer working environment.

Yes. I agree. Unfortunately I don't think the HSE will see this as a viable argument. I'm no authoritie on how the building/rope access industry managed to work with ever increasing stipulations. But they did.. A brick layer can command £200+ per day so I'm told... go figure.. As I said until we are recognised as professional by some sort of governing body we are trapped. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. Just speaking from what I see year to year. I'm just a lowly freelance climbing arb and have no idea on how business is run so feel free to shoot me down. The way we all operate atm (professional companys) accredited or not is and have been progressing fast in the field of heath and safety imo..

If our industry is to adopt irata style qualifications then our industry needs to be regulated as is the building industry where we are seen as a professional skilled work force. The sector we work in is not seen as a necessity as with a majority of other rope access work. This has a reflection on the money we can charge to the domestic customer along with commercial. If we are taken seriously and have a board that represents our skills and professional approach to safe working practices this may benefit us all.. I think that's a long way off. As well as the pay grade that should go with the extra hoops...

How are most rope access anchors by an irata trained oppritive assessed for suitably? A majority are fixed man made structures with quantifiable tested load limits. Obviously rock ect hace other things to consider. Trees however are dynamic and subject to other factors that may compromise the stated quantifiable tests that can be applied to perfect green wood. Work with a DdRT system or SRWP will impose the same forces on the same TIP selection (Not base tie off). If anchor failure is a factor due to wood integrity this will be the same with both techniques. I believe that the utilisation of pre loaded re-directs that are an option in SRWP as opposed to dynamic re-directs as used in DdRT are a far safer opinion to gaining a better working position on crown extremitys. The need for a better understanding of force impact through the trees structure when loaded should become a more prevalent part of any climbing training qualification. This I believe would have a more significant impact on the reduction of anchor point failure. This should also include the inherent property of different wood types and defects. I wonder if when working with different rock types in irata situations this is covered in their risk assessment. As mentioned in the other thread by someone has self rescue been considered? Two ropes. Panic, fear, confusion whilst trying to get out of a tree with potentially one hand...

A redununt non load bearing base anchor may work in your re enforcing anchor scenario. Obviously the hardware would have to withstand the potential impact of anchor point failure..

Inevitably. Unless they already have. All seems to have come out at the same time so maybe timing is great for some...

New as of this past few months I believe.. Not my document. Something made public on Instagram..

Thanks for bringing this subject to the masses Paul.

LANTRA has a new SRWP out that I believe covers single rope work, providing a rigours risk assessment has been carried out prior to work methods being implemented. Not sure what the risk assessment initials as yet. Hope to find out soon?

Not sure the AA had a choice tbf. Uphill battle. When facing an foe who had a massive fortresses and big guns, what chance dose a man with a sling shot have... hold on.. I'm sure a story about this has been written before ??

Not if their sponsored by redbull as a sport ?

? I envisage opinions b and c being taken up by a lot of smaller to medium sized companys. Leave the domestic/small land owner market to the currently unsafe complyers of legislation that are currently accredited. The larger companies can chase the local authorities, highway, building and larger poor profit tenders..

I think a qualification in needle point is now required to perform such tasks..