UKTC Archive

RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
From: Paul Smith
Date: Dec 05 2019 16:07:48
Hi Angus, several other 'relevant' causes of falls incl. anchor point 
failure, system detachment, equipment failure, running off the end of the 
line on descent etc. ect. 


Paul Smith
Technical Officer & 
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors)
 
Arboricultural Association
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish,
Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3DL, UK
Tel +44 (0) 1242 XXXXXX 
Mob +44 (0)7971 XXXXXX 
Email: paul@xxxxxx.org.uk
www.trees.org.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Registered Office
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish,
Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3DL
Arboricultural Association Ltd
Company No. 4070377, Charity Number 1083845
Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd Company No. 05180170

Switch to Ecosia – the Search Engine that plants trees!

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> 
On Behalf Of Angus Blankenstein
Sent: 05 December 2019 16:03
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

It's even more frustrating when the only tree climbing work you do is aerial 
inspection of bat roosts and the risk of cutting your rope is effectively 
zero.

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, 15:44 Steve, <arbor@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

I have read it Paul and certainly 2 points of contact for work 
positioning should be the norm, as for accessing the tree and moving 
around then it is disproportionate to the perceived increase in safety 
to consider this, 2 rope system, as a first criteria as in point 1.

The danger is it will be used as another tick box that does not really 
address the problem of poor practice and irrelevant non workplace 
based training.

There are already a lot of pressures on the aspiring professional 
contractor with unfortunately insufficient associated benefits.

I personally have been and remain an advocate of the AAAC scheme but 
there has long been an outstanding need for greater market place 
exposure. I still, after 35 years of operation, have to educate most 
of our new clients to its existence and the benefits to them.

I in no way want to denigrate the hard work you and your colleagues 
carry out in administering the AA but more effective marketing of the 
scheme is required, not that that would change my opinion on the 
validity in improving safety by the implementation of a two rope 
system as a mandatory first choice.

I have joined the face book feedback Paul so please don't feel the 
need to respond on here to my senile ranting as I am sure you have 
more pressing matters

Regards



Steven Burkitt N.C.H. (Arb)
Director
Complete Tree Services (UK) Ltd
The Cowshed, Park Pale Farm
Thame Road
Brill
HP18 9SA

Tel: 01844 XXXXXX

Mobile: 07831 XXXXXX
Email: steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.org.uk

Registered in England & Wales No. 0428 0701 - Vat No. 896 XXXX XX


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Paul Smith
Sent: 05 December 2019 11:45
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

Hi Steve, can I direct you to the 'Hierarchy of use of 2-ropes' in the 
article, point 3. states that where your risk assessment determines 
such, on the basis of 'reasonably practicable or introducing an higher 
level of risk', one anchor / one rope can be used. It's now a case of 
identifying common and agreed ground where this is likely to be 
applicable and the forthcoming ICoP and Technical Guide will help (we 
do need to have an open-mind regarding '2 points of contact' with the 
tree which may not always be 2 ropes + 2 anchors.)

Regards,
Paul

Paul Smith
Technical Officer &
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors)

Arboricultural Association
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, 
GL10 3DL, UK Tel +44 (0) 1242 XXXXXX Mob +44 (0)7971 XXXXXX
Email: paul@xxxxxx.org.uk
www.trees.org.uk





















Registered Office
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, 
GL10 3DL Arboricultural Association Ltd Company No. 4070377, Charity 
Number 1083845 Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd Company No. 
05180170

Switch to Ecosia – the Search Engine that plants trees!

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: 05 December 2019 11:32
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

Rupert,

I would whole heartedly agree that a secondary, preferably non cut able.
anchor point is installed before actually working. But this is 
advocating a two rope system as the default choice when ascending and 
moving about the tree (workspace) to points of actual work. Wholly 
impractical and unnecessary.


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Rupert Baker
Sent: 05 December 2019 10:40
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

Hi Julian,
On rock - eg sea-ciiffs down here - 2 separate 9mm ropes works well on 
climbs where you need to zig-zag a lot by traversing to ascend; 
otherwise I'd be in agreement; though re trees, I'd always advocate a 
2ndry anchor point when set up to eg make an awkward cut.
Atb
Rupert

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info On Behalf Of Julian Dunster
Sent: 04 December 2019 22:14
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?

In rock, ice or mountain climbing about the only time I ever used two 
9 mm ropes was on horizontal or diagonal traverses, or occasionally as 
a haul line for gear. Otherwise it was always an 11 or 10 mm single line.
Requiring two ropes in a tree is silly and likely to be a desk 
arborist or non arborist who has never actually been in a tree.

I still have one of my original 120 foot Viking hawser laid nylon 
ropes from the late 60's. We discovered that window blind companies 
stocked them and sold them at a far lower cost than the outdoor store. 
One was dunked in red dye so that we could easily see a red or white 
(dirty
grey) line once on the hill or crag. They worked well enough except 
when wet or frozen. Then they were a real pain to maul through biners 
or descenders, or even over the shoulder in a classic abseil mode that 
many of us used before Clog came out with a Figure of 8.

"And ya tell the kids of today and they won't believe you."

On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.


Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified 
Arborist, ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378, ISA Tree Risk 
Assessment Qualified Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

North American distributor for Rinntech www.dunster.ca 
www.treelaw.info www.rinntech.info

On Wed/12/4/2019 2:01 PM, Brad Cadwallader wrote:
My climbing career is well over but I do stay in touch with what is
going on and for many years co-ordinated the NZ Climbing Regional and 
National competitions.

Therefore I cannot fathom why you would implement the requirement 
for a
mandatory two independent climbing system as the norm. Whoever came up 
with this idea clearly is not a climber and does not understand the 
work an arborist performs.



[look to the USA as they are ahead of us in this regard as usual]



USA does not require two independent climbing systems. The Z133 
Industry
Standards states:



8.1.4 While working aloft, the climber shall have available a 
climbing
line and at least one other means of being secured on his/her person 
at all times (e.g., an arborist climbing line and a work-positioning 
lanyard). Two means of being secured shall be used when the climber 
determines that it is advantageous.



8.1.6The arborist shall be secured at all times while ascending the
tree, including when using climbing spurs/gaffs. The arborist shall be 
tied in once the work begins and remain tied in until the work is 
completed and he/she has returned to the ground. The arborist shall be 
secured when repositioning the climbing line. When repositioning, the 
arborist shall preload the new tie-in point with his/her full weight 
before releasing the current means of being secured.



The ITCC Competition rules state that a climber must lanyard in at 
each
work station.



Nowhere do the USA standards or ITCC rules state that two 
independent
climbing systems shall be used at all times - that's just silly.



Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Mike Finch
Sent: 4 December 2019 10:47 a.m.
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?



As a daily climbing arborist I whole hearty welcome this 'new' move 
to two

independent climbing systems as the norm. I always find it absurd 
that we

climb on this small single 11mm line at such height on an unrated 
and

unknown anchor. I cant wait to see the climbing kits and climbing 
styles

evolve; look to the USA as they are ahead of us in this regard as 
usual. I

love the freedom of single rope climbing but there is NO redundancy 
in

place. If this move can save but one life it is worth it.



Regards, Mike Finch

Finch Arboriculture Ltd



On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:21, Paul Smith <paul@xxxxxx.org.uk> wrote:



Hi Jerry, something HSE are currently "looking into" but currently 
there is no industry specific 'SIC' code for registering accidents 
/ incidents to arb so they have to search the database on key 
words, very time consuming and not always very accurate 
(apparently.) Hence HSE do have lost of figures / stats but can't 
categorically say for arb and whether accidents have reduced because of 
LOLER.
Equally number of people working in the industry is very difficult 
to determine, because of the demographic and lots of self-employed, 
but a recent publication indicated circa 21k.
Regards
Paul Smith
Technical Officer &
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors) Registered Office The 
Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, 
GL10 3DL Arboricultural Association Ltd Company No. 4070377, 
Charity Number 1083845 Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd Company No.
05180170 Switch to Ecosia   the Search Engine that plants trees!
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 03 December 2019 14:16
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
OK Paul - I understand these are not regs, but the question still 
stands, are these more stringent best-practice non-regs actually 
going to make a difference to the number of injuries?
It seems to me that the LOLER situation might be informative as to 
whether these measures to actually do what they're supposed to do. 
You
say time
will tell.   Well has time told as far as LOLER is concerned?
There's been plenty of time so there should be lots of pre- and 
post-LOLER statistics on the number of accidents. Do you (does the 
HSE)
have them?
One would, of course, also have to take into account any increase 
in the number of people working in the industry, so that would be 
another set of statistics.
On 03/12/2019 13:43, Paul Smith wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I guess "time will tell" and, unlike LOLER, this is not the 
introduction
of new HSE regulations but an updating of 'industry best practice'
(an academic point really.) However, at least now HSE do have 
better informed figures / stats to measure against, unlike 
previously when
LOLER came in.
2 rope working has always been, and will remain, a feature of tree
climbing techniques but the expectation going forward is that the 
frequency of such will increase and where it does not the 
justification
for such, ie.
using a single-rope, will have to be robustly determined.
Paul Smith
Technical Officer &
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors)
Email: paul@xxxxxx.org.uk
www.trees.org.uk
Registered Office
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, 
Gloucestershire,
GL10 3DL Arboricultural Association Ltd Company No. 4070377, 
Charity Number 1083845 Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd Company 
No.
05180170
Switch to Ecosia   the Search Engine that plants trees!
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Jerry Ross
Sent: 03 December 2019 13:27
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
By how much will two rope working actually reduce accidents?  If 
none or
insignificantly, will it be abandoned?
I asked this question twenty odd years ago when LOLER was 
introduced,
whether there would be a review after a few years to determine 
whether and by how many had accidents within the arb industry been 
reduced; and if the answer was none or insignificantly, would the
regulations be repealed?
Answer came there none.
I wonder what the answer is: there should be plenty of data now. 
So can
anyone tell me by how much HAVE accidents actually been reduced 
(taking into account any change in the number of people working in 
the industry) since the introduction of LOLER?
Of course LOLER was quite successful as a work creation scheme; 
but did
it do what it was supposed to do?
Will two-rope working?
On 03/12/2019 12:42, Steve wrote:
Precisely Paul none!
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Paul 
Smith
Sent: 03 December 2019 12:38
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
Hi Steve, simplistically the evidence, as far as HSE are 
concerned, is
here
https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/HSE-Fall-from-Height
-I
ncidents-involving-arborists
at least to some extent.
Regards,
Paul
Paul Smith
Technical Officer &
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors)
Email: paul@xxxxxx.org.uk
www.trees.org.uk
Registered Office
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, 
Gloucestershire,
GL10 3DL Arboricultural Association Ltd Company No. 4070377, 
Charity Number 1083845 Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd 
Company
No.
05180170
Switch to Ecosia   the Search Engine that plants trees!
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Steve
Sent: 03 December 2019 11:58
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
Let's be honest this is a totally unjustifiable interference by 
people
that are at best uniformed and at worst have a vested interest in 
additional training modules! Where is the evidence to justify this?
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Paul 
Smith
Sent: 03 December 2019 11:06
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
Hi Paul, the " 60 million dollar question" just now.
Acknowledging you are asking here, on UKTC, but if you asked the
regulator (the HSE) they would say the 'immediate implications' are 
those they ve been expecting us to have been working to since 2005, 
i.e. 2 rope with 2 independent anchors...in practice the exception
rather than the rule.
Further information will follow shortly in relation to the 
amended /
updated ICoP, and Technical Guide 1, firstly to industry 
consultation before production and then to be incorporated in 
updated working practices and training / assessment procedures etc.
For now "watch this space", i.e. the AA website, and be thinking 
about
opportunities to move to 2-rope working where it will not hinder 
nor increase the risk of working / tree climbing activities, 
particularly at points of deemed higher risk, e.g. on access / on 
change-overs / using tools etc. Also be thinking about updating 
risk assessments and incorporating the 2-rope hierarchy etc. and 
associated justifications.
Hoping this helps, at least a little.
Regards,
PAUL
Paul Smith
Technical Officer &
Accreditation Schemes Manager (Contractors)
Email: paul@xxxxxx.org.uk
Registered Office
The Malthouse, Stroud Green, Standish, Stonehouse, 
Gloucestershire,
GL10 3DL Arboricultural Association Ltd Company No. 4070377, 
Charity Number 1083845 Arboricultural Association Trading Ltd 
Company
No.
05180170
Switch to Ecosia   the Search Engine that plants trees!
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of PC
Sent: 03 December 2019 10:49
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Implementing a Two-Ropes System - HSE Requirement?
Morning all,
Is anybody aware of the immediate implications for climbing 
Arborists
and managers in relation to the web-link below:
https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/Two-rope-working- 
-a
n-
u
pdate
Thanks,
Paul
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/










--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/