Paul Poynter

Ben is always pushing the envelope of ideas, and it is mostly full of ideas rather than equipment, so I imagine that it will translate easily enough to younger climbers and those less technically inclined. There is never going to be a one pattern fits all for tree work anchoring and much like our risk assessment techniques it is always being updated throughout the work process. Ben and Nod's paper showed that EN testing is often not relevant for us and I feel the same way about industrial access back up systems. That said, there is a massive field of anchoring ideas waiting to be explored by whomever takes an interest to push their own technical levels, expanding work positioning and safety. It sounds exciting that the colleges will take the new ideas on board.

Some guidance on configuration at the bridge will be vital. One bridge, two bridge, rings, swivels, tri-swivels etc.

Hello Paul, Thank you, I found the document and can see how different it is from the ICoP, quite refreshing to have something so wide in its range, it is obviously unfinished and a little hard to follow structurally. I looked straight for the section on back-up systems; the first two points are basically the same, two primary systems that are separate or two rigged from one. Then a suggestion to use a lanyard, which implies that it is also OK to climb on one line due to the length restriction of a typical lanyard. And lastly, suggested use of a trailed system. So two quick questions, are these points intentionally vague? Will trailed systems be written into Lantra and college training? As SRS become normalized there has to be more instruction in regard remote anchoring and the awareness of working around basal anchored systems.

Hello, I have been out of the UK for 9 years and working in a country new to rope work. As the industry develops we take influence from different countries and codes of practices after all, there is no point reinventing the wheel for no reason. I found a refreshing feeling being in Japan, no rules meant unlimited creativity but I understand that a minimum standard is very necessary. As Japan moves into a generic framework where a back up system is a legal requirement for rope work (not tree work specific), I have been watching with interest the goings on in the UK. I am of the mind that a copy and paste mindset will never be able to take industrial access modes of practice into trees but also believe there are ways to develop ones rope work skill while aiming for a higher standard of safety. Wether that is a generic back-up system or a fluid technical palette that can accommodate for changing situations is open for discussion, I favor the latter. It has been interesting listening to reactions, some knee jerk negative and others open to the new challenge. Remember, it wasn't so long ago that stationary climbers were seen as spawn of the devil! And now a growing number of climbers are becoming adept at controlling two devices on independent systems. I read the updated Industry Code of Practice, wished that there was more technical clarity and advice. There are lots of avenues to explore, hope that we find a way to do it. All the best Paul