Health & Safety RE: Hitch Hiker, Rope Runner, Bulldog Bone Etc.

Mangoes

Mangoes

Participating member
Location
Greater Toronto Area
Firstly I would commend the creative spirit and innovative minds of those looking to help the arboriculture industry "SEE";
S - safer
E - easier
E - efficient

and I would encourage the continuance of this habit.

However;
- being responsible for the safety and welfare of >10 tree workers
- being responsible for adherence to regulatory obligations
- and being liable for the fallout of any failure, the worst of which I don't even want to voice

I agonize over the desire to embrace these innovations, yet fulfill my duty of care.

So - what is going to take to get the manufacturers to assist the end user/employer with adherence to Health & Safety principles and obligations? For example;

United States
  • ANSI / ASSE Z359.1 – Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components. 1992 (R1999), later superseded in 2007.
  • ANSI / ASSE Z359.3 – Safety Requirements for Positioning & Travel Restraint Systems. 2007
  • ANSI / ASSE Z359.6 – Specifications and Design Requirements for Active Fall Protection Systems. 2009.
  • ANSI / ASSE Z359.7 – Qualification and Verification Testing of Fall Protection Products. 2011.
  • ANSI Draft Z359.8 – Draft Standard.Safety Requirements for Rope Access Fall Protection Systems. Revision 1.6 August 2008.
  • ANSI / ASSE Z359.12 – Connecting components for Personal Fall Arrest Systems. 2009.
Australia/New Zealand
Canada
  • CAN/CSA-Z259.2.3-12 – Descent devices (Adopted ISO 22159:2007, first edition, 2007-05-15, with Canadian deviations). 2012.
  • CAN/CSA-Z259.2.5-12 – Fall arresters and vertical lifelines. 2012.
  • CSA Z259.12-11 – Connecting components for personal fall arrest systems (PFAS). 2011.
  • CAN/CSA-Z259.14-12 – Fall restrict equipment for wood pole climbing. 2012.
  • CSA Z259.16-04 (R2009) – Design of Active Fall-Protection Systems. 2004 (2009).

And finally;
Is it not reasonable for the Distributor to participate in the push for certification? Does not the Distributor share in the liability when selling tools which may or may not be adequately vetted?
 
So are you saying that you and those that you supervise currently comply with all those standards that you listed?
 
I listed standards by country. We have obligation only to meet/exceed CSA standards - which we've got pretty well covered EXCEPT for friction hitches and requirement for a 2 line system. Thought the Arborist Safe Work Practices fills the void to the point of tolerance with the regulators.

Ontario Ministry of Labour and the CSA go into nervous twitches over friction hitch use and single system (DdRT, SRT) use. The ASWP mandates second system (lanyard) employed at all work locations. Which the regulators begrudgingly accept. They would prefer all work positioning and fall arrest systems employ mechanical, rated devices with a 2 line setup.

Please, please don't identify me as a detractor. In fact myself and my leadership team are brainstorming and drafting internal standards for DRT (SRT) systems. Were we able to finalize with a 'SEE' DRT system, our regulators would probably find these standards a cure for their nervous, spastic twitches.

I just need support from the Distrubutors and manufacturers to help vet the approach.
 
Mangoes said:
I listed standards by country. We have obligation only to meet/exceed CSA standards - which we've got pretty well covered EXCEPT for friction hitches and requirement for a 2 line system. Thought the Arborist Safe Work Practices fills the void to the point of tolerance with the regulators.

Ontario Ministry of Labour and the CSA go into nervous twitches over friction hitch use and single system (DdRT, SRT) use. The ASWP mandates second system (lanyard) employed at all work locations. Which the regulators begrudgingly accept. They would prefer all work positioning and fall arrest systems employ mechanical, rated devices with a 2 line setup.

Please, please don't identify me as a detractor. In fact myself and my leadership team are brainstorming and drafting internal standards for DRT (SRT) systems. Were we able to finalize with a 'SEE' DRT system, our regulators would probably find these standards a cure for their nervous, spastic twitches.

I just need support from the Distrubutors and manufacturers to help vet the approach.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind sharing we'd love to see it. Or pm me.
 
treebing said:
should they be classified as fall arrest when they are specifically for work positioning?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it the short answer is no.
There are 3 different classifications of fall protection.
1 fall arrest
2 travel restraint system
3 work positioning system
Unless we are in a bucket or something like that we don't sun under the fall arrest section
 
Mangoes said:
.... They would prefer all work positioning and fall arrest systems employ mechanical, rated devices with a 2 line setup......In fact myself and my leadership team are brainstorming and drafting internal standards for DRT (SRT) systems. Were we able to finalize with a 'SEE' DRT system, our regulators would probably find these standards a cure for their nervous, spastic twitches....
Click to expand...

I really don't like the direction you seem to be headed. But before I comment further perhaps you could extrapolate on what your " cure " would be.
 
This really goes to the reason the large companies don't see to advance with technology. Maybe some of those that are innovating new devices can add to this conversation regarding what they've done with respect to official testing for approval by the various governing bodies like CSA, CE, etc...
 
I know I should do more, I just don't know the first thing about where to even start. Climbing trees and working in the shop on ideas are not very compatible with working with regulatory bodies. One of the reasons that I have chosen to pass off the distribution, marketing, and manufacturing to others that might hopefully be more connected. I do feel that those things are important but are an entirely separate project and an entirely different skill set. I am interested in where this thread goes.

As far as I can see from a regulatory point of view. DRT is the only logical step. A climber in BC was recently killed when his single point of attachment failed. That is going to continue.
 
Last edited:
treebing said:
I do feel that those things are important but are an entirely separate project and an entirely different skill set.
Click to expand...
Ask the questions of those other companies in the supply chain. Either they'll have that expertise or be able to connect you to the right people. You've introduced some great tools, it would be a shame to see it end with a regulatory issue.
 
Well this is irritating! What happen to this thread? Why start such a discussion and abandon it? Did you not like what you were hearing? Change jobs or just not give a crap to start with?
 
treebing said:
... As far as I can see from a regulatory point of view. DRT is the only logical step...
Click to expand...
Kevin, you and others have pretty much proven that DRT has its place in the tree industry. Making it a regulatory mandate, however, would limit options. That is not a good thing.
I, too, wish this discussion had continued. Does anyone know how many accidents have been attributed to non-certified multicenders? This report from OSHA, earlier this year, implies that fall from trees is not a current discussion point for them. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-osha-tree-care-publication
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom