UK Arb moving to two ropes at all times (USA next?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TC
  • Start date Start date
When I read the article my takeaway, maybe I missed something, was that HSE is studying to gather info not to implement. This is the start of the process. Not like it will be mandated next week. They UK arbos aren't living under a falling sky.

Since I stepped down from the ANSI Z133 committee I don't know where the standing is on two ropes. FOr all the years I was there the Z fought hard to stay under work positioning definitions not fall protection. Lots of reasons to stake out our work arena which is different than other rope work professions. Something that is missed, both by regulators and industry professionals, is that in fall protection systems the anchors need to be 'certified' in some way. AS arbos know many times there is only ONE proper TIP in a tree. And...its the art not the science that 'certifies' that TIP. Impossible to regulate, ask any company that's written a safety manual how they rassled with this issue. We've all been in aspens that are 12" dbh and there's no good TIP then gone to a white oak and used a 4" dbh TIP that would be used as an engine hoist TIP.

The issue that HSE is looking at is important. Over the years HSE has been ahead of OSHA/ANSI so stay educated about what's going on. Read @DSMc post just above. As usual, well written and thoughtful
 
Tom there appears to be two concurrent TB threads about this topic at present. I agree with your comments above. Our TIPs are not to engineered connections. Our ropes are static - no way I want to take a whipper on an arborist rope as opposed to alpine ropes/ gear (there’s no arb talk about fall factors etc. because we don't ever want to fall). I can see one climbing rope (SRS/MRS) and maybe one long lanyard as movable climb line and also a wire core lanyard, unless you're working a really spreading tree in which case I've used two lanyards and couple times even three climb lines to move around the thing. But industrial fall protection, if that's were these guys are headed, is whole different ball game. Full body harnesses. Etc. Etc. When I read some of the info on ArbTalk and in the links, it seemed one guy from HSE in the past had one opinion, and another guy now has another opinion. But still HSE didn't have concrete numbers on arb accidents from hard data - their incident data is mixed in with other types of accidents and there were no ‘contributing factors’ details. I have sat on these kinds of committees too and all of us often followed a process where we thought we were doing the right thing, in balance. But at the end of the day where we were often headed had us stepping back and sayng - wow. It’s easy to pass a regulation to be able to say there we did something. But . . . .
In one of the comments I read somewhere there was the thought that a more ‘safety productive’ use of time would be to address the Monday hung over worker, drug use and behavioural things/ supervisors we all know go on in the industry. Hanging from a second rope doesn't appear to me to be much more than low hanging fruit. And the standard safety inspection up here I've heard about - checkin' helmet stickers and harness labels - well that's a joke for the most part. Maybe SPRAT would disagree. But only my further 2 centz on Sunday here.
 
Last edited:
Jemco said:
So much depends on tree structure, number of redirects, and the upmost primary rediect's strength, that too many SRT climbers with poor judgement, and lack of differing species wood strength n characteristics knowledge, are hitting the ground hard.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard or seen nothing of this epidemic of base-tie related accidents you speak of. The Human has made more than a couple of serious mistakes doing tree work, besides that do you have accident reports to cite?

I agree with previous comments that distributing climber load using multiple natural or mechanical redirects, whether from a canopy or base anchor has made tree climbing and tree work much safer.

I read through the document that TC linked to, it appears that one line is permissible if using two lines is assessed to create higher risk than one line. Monster loophole, will turn a bunch of climbers into liars but it is a loophole in the guideline.

Great to see Ben Minty Rose and Jo Hedger listed as climbers for the HSE demo, good try anyway ;-)
-AJ
 
So Moss, sounds an awful lot like you too contend that base tied SRT setups in certain situations is not a force multiplier?

And if you feel that way, why are so many SRT climbers going to a crown TIP once aloft?

The whole idea that mechanical advantage doesn't apply to SRT's a bit silly tho ain't it?

Jemco
 
Jemco said:
So Moss, sounds an awful lot like you too contend that base tied SRT setups in certain situations is not a force multiplier?

And if you feel that way, why are so many SRT climbers going to a crown TIP once aloft?

The whole idea that mechanical advantage doesn't apply to SRT's a bit silly tho ain't it?

Jemco
Click to expand...

Of course not, I was never one to disagree with basic physics ;-) The good news is that multiple redirects massively reduce the effects of force multiplication in an SRT climbing system.
-AJ
 
Anyone who climbs a base tied system without confidence in the upper TIP (redirect) is clearly asking for trouble. The good news is that 99.999% of SRT climbers value their lives and make smart decisions by either selecting a bomber upper redirect from a base tie or by setting “pre-directs” or capturing multiple limbs within the rope path.
-AJ
 
Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I remember trying out an early floating bridge saddle, and hating it so bad I traded it away to Magargal for a traditional 4 D euc man saddle, with big satisfying D rings!

Not the teeny tiny annoying D rings found on dang near every new saddle made.

I may indeed be an old school dinosaur stuck in the past, but I'm still climbin n relatively intact. Fug those flimsy floatin bridges!

And those itty bitty fuggin D rings too!

Jemco
 
When I read the article my takeaway, maybe I missed something, was that HSE is studying to gather info not to implement. This is the start of the process. Not like it will be mandated next week. They UK arbos aren't living under a falling sky.
Click to expand...
Correct.
The original poster ought to have used a different construct to announce this information - as you can see by most of the replies - it is ringing alarm bells in peoples minds (unnecessarily).

Facts:
1. The UK HSE does not write legislation (ie the law). That job falls to the Parliament (the rough equivalent in the USA is Congress).
2. UK HSE is (essentially) an enforcement agency - they enforce the workplace laws made by Parliament. A tree becomes a 'workplace' - a place where work is carried out.
3. As it currently exists - there is no law in the UK (ie England, Wales, Scotland...) that specifically states that a tree worker must use an ISO 22846 rope access system.
4. All Rope Access work is undertaken in accordance with the principles published in ISO 22846.
5. UK HSE does provide advice to UK Parliament - that is part of their scope of operations.
6. UK HSE are undertaking 'scoping' work - to try to figure out how the tree climbing industry operates - and if workplace laws need to address that industry or if a 'ACOP' needs to be implemented.

Commentary:
1. IRATA has an interest in this process.
2. IRATA wants tree climbers (at a workplace) to fall under its umbrella - it makes IRATA more powerful.
3. Rope access workers view tree climbers as a fringe group who seem to be able to escape and be exempted from the normal ISO 22846 protocols. They see this as somewhat unfair.
4. Gravity works the same way for rope access workers and tree climbers - and so IRATA thinks that tree climbers should fall under the same umbrella. Why should the laws of gravity apply differently to one class of worker? (Note: IRATA is not a government body nor does it make legislation).
5. Tree climbers (at a workplace) of course will resist - thats obvious. They see the use of ISO 22846 as hindering their work - with the usual argument that it adds complexity and increases risk of entanglements and hinders their mobility in the tree canopy.
6. IRATA will counter this by stating that with a formal training and assessment process, those concerns can be mitigated.
7. There are no engineered anchor points in a tree that come with a test/inspection tag. This complicates matters for IRATA and how to implement the ISO 22846 standard.
8. UK HSE also understand that a tree is a 'vegetable' and doesn't come with existing engineered anchorage or structural anchors such as steel beams and concrete pillars. It will be difficult to write an ACOP or a piece of legislation to capture and define what an acceptable anchor is in a tree. This will be difficult to precisely define and quantify in legislation.
9. Rope access is a form of both work positioning (or simply 'positioning') and fall-arrest. Both acting in conjunction.
10. Same goes for tree climbing - it is a form of positioning and fall-arrest - switching from one-to-the-other. A free-fall is defined as a fall exceeding 600mm.

The concept of 'fall protection' means that a worker is using a combination of PPE and techniques to avoid injury and/or death from risk of falls at a workplace. Fall protection has three distinct forms as follows:
1. Travel restraint.
2. Work positioning (or just positioning).
3. Fall-arrest.

Definition of travel restraint:
PPE is used to prevent falls (a fall cannot occur).
Analogy...think dog tied up in back of pickup truck. If dog leash is set to correct length and anchored in correct position - a radius of movement is allowed - but, the dog can't actually jump over the sides.

Definition of positioning:
The worker is supported by his PPE with continuous tension in a balanced and stable orientation so that a free-fall cannot occur. Again, a free-fall is defined as a fall exceeding 600mm.

Definition of fall-arrest:
The worker is at risk of a free-fall but PPE will catch and arrest the worker before impact with the ground or an obstacle. In other words, PPE is used in a way that does not prevent a free-fall...only catches the worker after he has fallen.
 
Last edited:
Having taken a couple free falls arrested by a DDRT body line.

Adding a Screamer type of shock load absorber makes sense IMO.

Screamers

Screamers: A shock absorbing sling designed to reduce peak loads in any climbing system. Screamers will provide added protection in climbing and rescu
www.rockandsnow.com

Anything to absorb the shock n prevent broken backs.

Makes more sense than another bodyline.......

Jemco
 
Last edited:
Unless any changes define a 2nd rope system differently, I would think that a long lanyard in single leg mode would qualify nicely. It might require a change in the adjuster to something rated for life support, but I don't see that as much of a problem, myself. It would give you guys plenty of reason to invent the microHH and microRW and who knows what else. You could probably just incorporate a screamer inline with your adjuster for true fall arrest, assuming the adjuster qualifies.

Of course, I'm biased since I already use two climblines most of the time.
 
It would be interesting to see what fails more often in those "freak accident" type of situations: the rope or the ascender. Most people use a single carabiner to tie themselfes in, and we have seen a number of times where ropes have opened trilock carabiners.

How many opportunities are there really for a rope to fail while the climber isn't cutting?

I dont have any statistics on this, but if a majority of catastrophic failures were happening at the ascender, backing it up should be the first step in making climbing safer.

A second rope would of course also cover these cases of failure, but the point here is to not impede the climber too much.

If we all put a rocker or chest ascender over our climbing systems we could dramatically increase the reliability of our climbing systems, the question is wheter this would do anything to stop people from dieing.
 
With two lines, you back up the multicender, the rope and the anchor in one fell swoop. Assuming that you wouldn't be anchoring to the same limb/crotch, you backup the TIP as well. This doesn't give you any advantage in the event of a trunk failure below both TIPs, but if one line is anchored in another tree you can add another backup to the list... the entire structure you're climbing.

The laws of probabilities aren't linear... the odds of anything in both systems failing isn't twice as unlikely, it is exponentially more unlikely.

You can't get as much increased safety out of doubling up on a couple of components of a single system as you can with doubling the entire system.

I'm not advocating for mandatory dual systems, I'm merely pointing out how governing bodies arrive at them as a way of increasing safety. It doesn't always pan out well for all industries, nor is it always a good idea... but it's often the first solution that comes up, because redundant systems have a long track record of being reliable and easy to implement.
 
moss said:
Monster loophole, will turn a bunch of climbers into liars but it is a loophole in the guideline.
Click to expand...


That's true Moss, the difficulty will be as you say, how will the climber/company owner justify it on general day to day treeclimbing jobs without having to bend the truth?

In 2005 SRT was for mainly used for access/ascent into the canopy not work positioning hence why this issue has reared it's head in 2019 where we now have large numbers of climbers using SRTWP for treework (UK included). DdRT is classed as work positioning/fall arrest, SRT as rope access but they both use a single line hence the HSE requiring to see two ropes in use now when using either system.

Here's the monster loophole (below) from the 2005 Work at Height Regulations which relate to the use of SRT and now SRTWP.-

3. The system may comprise a single rope where—

(a)a risk assessment has demonstrated that the use of a second line would entail higher risk to persons; and

(b)appropriate measures have been taken to ensure safety.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/schedule/5/made
 
Last edited:
Or just to treework at night whereby no one can easily video/photograph the evidence whether using redundancy or not...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom