Mangoes
Well-Known Member
SRT - Pandora\'s Box?
I realize that many have grown fond of SRT and the benefits and efficiencies it is percieved to provide.
However; I would like to ask a few questions.
1) Will the reverence for SRT exist if the user is required to employ a secondary back up line? (i.e. similar to rope access workers)
2) Are SRT proponents aware that the regulators may interpret the acceptance of SRT by the Arb community as a means to demand conformance with existing rope access regulations? (i.e. secondary back up line)
3) Would SRT advocates accept the obligation to adhere to current rope access regulations for other industries?
An anecdote may help provide background.
In 2001 a worker at the City of Toronto, seasoned and experienced with closed DDRT systems chose to `try out`an open, split tail system. Problem was - the climbing line was terminated with the knot he regulariy employed - a bowline. The bowline failed and he fell and was significantly injured. (Discussion re: termination knots need not be beaten gain)
The fall out is where it gets really interesting. Due to the occurance of a Critical Injury, as defined by the Ministry of Labour, the incident had to be report to the MoL, who then launched an investigation. Whitle doing so they issued a stop order to the entire forestry division and all forestry contractors. I believe it was for near 2 months. (non-union Senior managers were doing things like mowing grass during this time)
Upon investigation the MoL got very disturbed by our use of DDRT climbing systems as they did not conform to any other regulated work at height system. For a period of time they were demanding that industry spokes persons determine the effectiveness of the systems employed by Window washers. SRT with descent device, secondary line with rope grab backup. One of my mentors was on the committee reviewing this with other industry reps and fortunately or unfortunately we got to try these systems for a few days. The experience was not favourable.
Concessions were made and the result was the development of the Arborist Safe Work Practices and the governing committee. By developing the standards and periodlically reviewing them the committee has partially appeased the MoL.
The MoL still doesnt like what we do or how we do it; and it somewhat worries me that the quick acceptance of SRT by the Arbo community might inadvertently open Pandora`s Box. By this i mean that the regulators (who never really care about hands on perceptions of a tool or technique)may see partial compliance as a means to demanding full compliance to the standards for techniques already in place for other industries.
Thoughts and discussion appreciated.
I realize that many have grown fond of SRT and the benefits and efficiencies it is percieved to provide.
However; I would like to ask a few questions.
1) Will the reverence for SRT exist if the user is required to employ a secondary back up line? (i.e. similar to rope access workers)
2) Are SRT proponents aware that the regulators may interpret the acceptance of SRT by the Arb community as a means to demand conformance with existing rope access regulations? (i.e. secondary back up line)
3) Would SRT advocates accept the obligation to adhere to current rope access regulations for other industries?
An anecdote may help provide background.
In 2001 a worker at the City of Toronto, seasoned and experienced with closed DDRT systems chose to `try out`an open, split tail system. Problem was - the climbing line was terminated with the knot he regulariy employed - a bowline. The bowline failed and he fell and was significantly injured. (Discussion re: termination knots need not be beaten gain)
The fall out is where it gets really interesting. Due to the occurance of a Critical Injury, as defined by the Ministry of Labour, the incident had to be report to the MoL, who then launched an investigation. Whitle doing so they issued a stop order to the entire forestry division and all forestry contractors. I believe it was for near 2 months. (non-union Senior managers were doing things like mowing grass during this time)
Upon investigation the MoL got very disturbed by our use of DDRT climbing systems as they did not conform to any other regulated work at height system. For a period of time they were demanding that industry spokes persons determine the effectiveness of the systems employed by Window washers. SRT with descent device, secondary line with rope grab backup. One of my mentors was on the committee reviewing this with other industry reps and fortunately or unfortunately we got to try these systems for a few days. The experience was not favourable.
Concessions were made and the result was the development of the Arborist Safe Work Practices and the governing committee. By developing the standards and periodlically reviewing them the committee has partially appeased the MoL.
The MoL still doesnt like what we do or how we do it; and it somewhat worries me that the quick acceptance of SRT by the Arbo community might inadvertently open Pandora`s Box. By this i mean that the regulators (who never really care about hands on perceptions of a tool or technique)may see partial compliance as a means to demanding full compliance to the standards for techniques already in place for other industries.
Thoughts and discussion appreciated.
