New Legislation for Tree Climbers in Ontario

As a result of the City of Toronto's accident back in the early spring tree climbing has been under scrutiny my the Ministry of Labour all summer. An aquaintance of mine was at a meeting on Friday where the potential standards and safe practices were outlined. Here are some of the details:

1. A tree climber must fall within safety compliance as per MOL
2. A compliant climber is:
- a climber with 3 points of contact including fall protection
- a climber on a pole/spar with 1 lanyard and a pair of spurs
- a climber who is ascending using 2 lanyard technique
- a climber who is ascending using a climbing line w/friction hitch while maintaining 3 points of contact ( including lifeline)
- a climber who is on a limb walk with 3 points of contact (climbing line, lanyard and foot/hand)
3.A non-compliant climber is:
- a climber who is suspended by a climbing line only
- a climber who swings wihtin the canopy on a climbing line only
4.A climber who will potentially require to use only the climbing line for work positioning MUST INSTALL A BACK UP SYSTEM WITH A SEPARATE ANCHOR POINT!!
5.A suitable system would have a line girth hitched at the separate anchor point with a rope grab (MOL identified the 'window washer's rope grab' as the tool of choice) on the end to which one would use an srt system.


They plan to have the 2 community colleges that train arborists and arborist apprentices enlisting these protocols by January 2005. Unless of course we can convince them that their system is MORE DANGEROUS. This is in the works to become an Occupational Health and Safety Act mandatory industry wide.
 
It's really not good at all. The industry does need a paradigm shift but what is needed is to have well trained individuals performing tree work that know what they are doing/using and WHY. What the industry does not need is a way to make climbing safer for stupider people.
 
Actually the incident that spawned all of this nonsense is the one I outlined in Awakenings. (You know the one in which people have gone for blood over the bowline) That being said this is not going to be a municiple protocol. This new standard is set to become a province wide standard under the OHSA under which treeworkers can be fined or given stop orders for non compliance. More people need to know because the industry reps on the commity don't climb trees, they are pretty good at talking about trees. Most are from Hydro One, all are in their 'administration' years so they are not in tune with new techniques/technology. Another standard they are pressing is that all climbing lines must be terminated with a double figure eight 'loop'(? terminology issues here) That almost went though as acceptable had it not been for my associate who brought up the significance of eye splices. So now we will be able to use eye splices and 2x figure eights. On a side note one of the individuals on the commitee was assissting with the OTCC in Sept. I observed them instructing a contestant that a 2x figure 8 was all that would be acceptable at the event. The contestant did as instructed then promptly clipped his carabiner into the loop. This struck a chord with me because within the safe work practices I have used and taught carabiners are not to be used in a manner by which they may become side loaded. What bothers me more is that alot of the people on the commitee are of the mind that they don't need to learn anything more about their systems. As a college instructer that individual should know the principles of carabiner use. As a tuitor to future tree climbers any individual should be retraining with people who know alot more such as Arbormaster.


I am asking Treebuzzers for thoughts on how this system can be proven as less safe I need some backup for fighting a relatively closed minded body such as the Ministry of Labour.
 
Its pretty obivious that the MOL has a limited understanding of arboriculture. Where was this meeting held and who were the parties involved? I'm sure there are plenty of Utility climbers (like myself) that would freak over this.
Any more info would be helful.

These proposals sound similar to Quebec standards, anyone know what they have to deal with?

Later
Dave
 
I don't know all of Quebec's standards. I do know that Buckingham designed a fall arrest friction saver that would absorb shock in a fall. The only market they made it for was Quebec, because apparently Quebec climbers have to use them by law.
 
I help teach Arborist apprentices in the winter at a local community college. As of January 1 we WILL BE REQUIRED to teach this new system as the proper technique for performing tree maintence at heights. A meeting was held on Nov. 2 and the legislation is all but in print.
 
This new system better make climbing so safe that no one has to be rescued aloft! I have just taken the arbormaster aerial rescue course; what an eye opener. The common competition style basic rescue is a rare situation in the real world. After taking the course, I still only have basic knowledge dealing with some of the most common situations, we as arborists, commonly injure ourselves in. Who has been trained to adequately rescue a climber using this new system (a system that has only been tested for a few hours, a system that has been condemned by the expert few that had a say)? This sounds very dangerous, and like a desperate measure taken in haste by some that may have agendas out side of what’s best for those of us who climb day in and day out passionately /forum/images/graemlins/9lame.gif. This is the most dangerous profession, accidents will happen no matter how we are regulated. We are only now beginning to understand the true the true science behind the work we conduct every day and have done for many years. Lets all use this knowledge to educate ourselves and not to repeat the mistakes of those who paid the ultimate price. I really hope some serious thought goes into this decision, If it ain't broke don’t fix it, just learn how to use the tool!

/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Does this mean that double-rope footlocking or even hip thrusting is now considered noncompliant? By the way it sounds now, three points of contact means you must have a climbing line, lanyard, AND hand/foot. I rarely (if never) use a lanyard when I hip thrust because there is no point if you are already tied in.

"A compliant climber is:.....
- a climber on a pole/spar with 1 lanyard and a pair of spurs"
No mention of a climbing line in this scenario. So if a climber is blocking down a chunk of wood and cuts his lanyard he's ok because he is compliant. Interesting. I wonder what ex-lineman at the MOL came up with this rule.

"- a climber who is on a limb walk with 3 points of contact (climbing line, lanyard and foot/hand)"
That's not a limb walk that's a limb crawl. It sounds as you need all three a once to have three points of contact. It doesn't say climbing line and two feet it says climbing line, lanyard, and foot/hand. Is this how it will be worded in the green book?

Any feedback?
Dave
 
I think I figured out the thought process in the board room. When working at heights you need to have (in their opinion) a "work platform" and "fall protection". In our industry a bucket operator stands in a "work platform" and wears a harness with a lanyard for "fall protection". So as soon as a climber sits in their harness, or swings to an adjacent tree on only a Ddrt, their Ddrt system reverts to a "work platform"

You can however buy the biggest $W#^$&* extension ladder money can buy and climb to the top w/out fall protection. Footlocking is allowed......with a belay, as is the case with bodythrusting. A few of my mentors believe that this whole deal is being pushed through rapidly by the large bodied foresry companies (Hydro One, City of Toronto) because they can't afford to be out of compliance and shut down by the Ministry. They would rather get something done slowly (lots of practice here) than have to face public criticism for not having crews out and active. /forum/images/graemlins/thk.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom