Fixed Aids and Safety Installations
- Thread starter cap n chris
- Start date
Babyhagrid
Well-known member
That's why caves are best as the realm of recreational people.
Are you sure this is true? How would you put a rope/belay on an "up climb" for clients if you're not allowed to free climb? Or reach high bolts to rig ropes for SRT? I went down a cave with a CIC person whilst they demonstrated how they would lead clients, and this is exactly what they did.
What people do at work and what they should do officially are not the same thing. Putting in extra bolts covered at start:
"Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.
...
(b)where it is not reasonably practicable for the work to be carried out in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), his providing sufficient work equipment for preventing, so far as is reasonably practicable, a fall occurring.
(5) Where the measures taken under paragraph (4) do not eliminate the risk of a fall occurring, every employer shall—
(a)so far as is reasonably practicable, provide sufficient work equipment to minimise—
(i)the distance and consequences; or
(ii)where it is not reasonably practicable to minimise the distance, the consequences,of a fall; and
(b)without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), provide such additional training and instruction or take other additional suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."
That includes him/herself
"Where work is carried out at height, every employer shall take suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury.
...
(b)where it is not reasonably practicable for the work to be carried out in accordance with sub-paragraph (a), his providing sufficient work equipment for preventing, so far as is reasonably practicable, a fall occurring.
(5) Where the measures taken under paragraph (4) do not eliminate the risk of a fall occurring, every employer shall—
(a)so far as is reasonably practicable, provide sufficient work equipment to minimise—
(i)the distance and consequences; or
(ii)where it is not reasonably practicable to minimise the distance, the consequences,of a fall; and
(b)without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (3), provide such additional training and instruction or take other additional suitable and sufficient measures to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, any person falling a distance liable to cause personal injury."
That includes him/herself
Last edited:
The HSE says risks should be reduced to as low as practicable. And the employer has no defence just because they followed regulations or standards as they don’t cover anything complex. You have to demonstrate it through things like modelling or safety cases. Following rules is what happens in the US where it is driven by legal liability. It can lead to interesting discussions and sometimes worse outcomes.
Risk blows most peoples minds in my experience. They can’t deal with low-probability high-consequence events, and they absolutely cannot balance them against high-frequency low-consequence events when it comes to allocating resources. Throw in a time element and they at sea.
You saw this during covid when a lot of people were suddenly confronted with it. It was necessary (for instance) to compare the deaths of some old people with a few years left against millions of kids missing school. The latter has consequences for decades, the former is soon forgotten after a period of angst. People want someone to blame no matter what you do. I don’t envy those who took decisions, no-one will ever thank you.
Risk blows most peoples minds in my experience. They can’t deal with low-probability high-consequence events, and they absolutely cannot balance them against high-frequency low-consequence events when it comes to allocating resources. Throw in a time element and they at sea.
You saw this during covid when a lot of people were suddenly confronted with it. It was necessary (for instance) to compare the deaths of some old people with a few years left against millions of kids missing school. The latter has consequences for decades, the former is soon forgotten after a period of angst. People want someone to blame no matter what you do. I don’t envy those who took decisions, no-one will ever thank you.
Climbing guides will climb unroped where it's usual to do so.
This is the key point. The risk in the activity has to be balanced against the downside of making it safer. If taking the measures to make it safer would be grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction they provide, there's no obligation to take them. This can be easier to demonstrate in some cases than others. In an industrial context, monetary cost may be the downside. In alpine climbing, it's things like weather, darkness, stonefall, etc. In a cave, it might be the clients getting cold while waiting for the guide to do something. For fixed aids and safety installations in caves, it's probably conservation and 'spoiling the challenge for others' - both of which are a lot harder to evaluate, hence the different views in this thread.
One of my little jobs was TA for barriers and containment in whatever country I was in. Since I was also in charge of a development, it was always interesting when you had to say no to yourself. Not a popularity contest, been there many times. One of the reasons I retired.
cap n chris
Well-known member
I think you'll discover that is incorrect. Plenty of recreational YouTube videos are evidence.
Babyhagrid
Well-known member
"preserving the character of the cave" is the usual line
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
The 'The Work at Height (Amendment) Regulations 2007' amended the Work at Height Regulation 2005. I don't believe the amendment has been repealed (could be wrong though)?
amendment: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/114/made
full regulations: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/regulation/14A
"Special provision in relation to caving and climbing
14A.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to the application of these Regulations to work concerning the provision of instruction or leadership to one or more persons in connection with their engagement in caving or climbing by way of sport, recreation, team building or similar activities.
(2) Where this paragraph applies, an employer, self-employed person or other person shall be taken to have complied with the caving and climbing requirements, if, by alternative means to any requirement of those requirements, he maintains in relation to a person at such work as is referred to in paragraph (1) a level of safety equivalent to that required by those requirements.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), in determining whether an equivalent level of safety is maintained, regard shall be had to —
(a)the nature of the activity;
(b)any publicly available and generally accepted procedures for the activity; and
(c)any other relevant circumstances.
(4) In this regulation —
(a)“caving” includes the exploration of parts of mines which are no longer worked;
(b)“climbing” means climbing, traversing, abseiling or scrambling over natural terrain or man-made structures; and
(c)“the caving and climbing requirements” means regulation 8(d)(ii), so far as it relates to paragraph 1 in Part 3 of Schedule 5, and that paragraph."
amendment: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/114/made
full regulations: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/regulation/14A
"Special provision in relation to caving and climbing
14A.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies in relation to the application of these Regulations to work concerning the provision of instruction or leadership to one or more persons in connection with their engagement in caving or climbing by way of sport, recreation, team building or similar activities.
(2) Where this paragraph applies, an employer, self-employed person or other person shall be taken to have complied with the caving and climbing requirements, if, by alternative means to any requirement of those requirements, he maintains in relation to a person at such work as is referred to in paragraph (1) a level of safety equivalent to that required by those requirements.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), in determining whether an equivalent level of safety is maintained, regard shall be had to —
(a)the nature of the activity;
(b)any publicly available and generally accepted procedures for the activity; and
(c)any other relevant circumstances.
(4) In this regulation —
(a)“caving” includes the exploration of parts of mines which are no longer worked;
(b)“climbing” means climbing, traversing, abseiling or scrambling over natural terrain or man-made structures; and
(c)“the caving and climbing requirements” means regulation 8(d)(ii), so far as it relates to paragraph 1 in Part 3 of Schedule 5, and that paragraph."
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
"Requirements for particular work equipment
8. Every employer shall ensure that, in the case of—
[...]
(d)a personal fall protection system, Part 1 of Schedule 5 and—
[...]
(ii)in the case of rope access and positioning techniques, Part 3 of Schedule 5;
[...]"
"PART 3
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROPE ACCESS AND POSITIONING TECHNIQUES
1. [Except as provided in paragraph 3,] a rope access or positioning technique shall be used only if—
(a)..., it involves a system comprising at least two separately anchored lines, of which one (“the working line”) is used as a means of access, egress and support and the other is the safety line;
(b)the user is provided with a suitable harness and is connected by it to the working line and the safety line;
(c)the working line is equipped with safe means of ascent and descent and has a self-locking system to prevent the user falling should he lose control of his movements; and
(d)the safety line is equipped with a mobile fall protection system which is connected to and travels with the user of the system.
[...]"
This is the bit that means that full-body harnesses and two-rope systems are not required for climbing and caving instruction (although it may not apply to related work e.g. you will often see climbing routesetters using two ropes these days; I doubt this has been tested by a court).
8. Every employer shall ensure that, in the case of—
[...]
(d)a personal fall protection system, Part 1 of Schedule 5 and—
[...]
(ii)in the case of rope access and positioning techniques, Part 3 of Schedule 5;
[...]"
"PART 3
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROPE ACCESS AND POSITIONING TECHNIQUES
1. [Except as provided in paragraph 3,] a rope access or positioning technique shall be used only if—
(a)..., it involves a system comprising at least two separately anchored lines, of which one (“the working line”) is used as a means of access, egress and support and the other is the safety line;
(b)the user is provided with a suitable harness and is connected by it to the working line and the safety line;
(c)the working line is equipped with safe means of ascent and descent and has a self-locking system to prevent the user falling should he lose control of his movements; and
(d)the safety line is equipped with a mobile fall protection system which is connected to and travels with the user of the system.
[...]"
This is the bit that means that full-body harnesses and two-rope systems are not required for climbing and caving instruction (although it may not apply to related work e.g. you will often see climbing routesetters using two ropes these days; I doubt this has been tested by a court).
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the specific regulations.
(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.
I think you might have meant to post paragraph 3 as well, after this bit?
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.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
I read it as 'for caving and climbing you don't have to do any of the things in paragraph 1 if you do something reasonable instead' so the paragraph 3 bit isn't relevant anyway?
I think paragraph 3 would kick in if you _weren't_ climbing or caving but otherwise demonstrated that a single-line system was safer (good luck arguing that in most cases, of course).
I think paragraph 3 would kick in if you _weren't_ climbing or caving but otherwise demonstrated that a single-line system was safer (good luck arguing that in most cases, of course).