Going rate for assessing trees for bat roosts

[Arbguy]

Can anyone advise? I am an experienced climber and have recently qualified to assess tree for bat roosts using endoscope with the Bat Conservation Trust. I am not sure what to charge as a daily rate? Anyone doing similar? Thanks.

[richy_B]

What's your normal day rate for climbing?

 

I'd have thought you could tag on £100 or so onto that for specialist work without seeming too expensive.

[Mark Bolam]

I did a climbing survey last week, using an endoscope for Batman with a Bluetooth feed to his tablet.

I really enjoyed it.

RAMS had to be spot on so I had to supply a qualified rescue climber as well, who drank plenty of tea.

I haven't discussed an invoice yet, it was for a groundwork company I do plenty of work for, so I'll be interested in opinions.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[treequip]

The endoscope training gives you another string to your bow but it is just another ticket that you wouldn't get the work without. You could argue a premium for the scope work but, it could also be argued that since you wont be using saws or rigging kit, its swings and roundabouts.

[Joe Newton]

It's gonna be a walk in the park compared to most tree work. I'd be tempted to stick to day rate and cherish the easier work!

[Mark Bolam]

Do rescue climber rules still apply?

That would affect the rate a bit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[daltontrees]

Do rescue climber rules still apply?

That would affect the rate a bit.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

According to AFAG402 "A minimum of two people should be present during all tree-climbing operations. One of the ground team must be available, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay."

 

Personally I think it is OTT to require an aerial rescuer to be present for all bat insections. Firstly no chainsaws will be used, thus greatly reducing the risk of any harm and also the severity of any possible harm. Secondly the heights I attain during bat inspections are less than for tree work operations, thicker stems and limbs, low chances of slipping or falling due to anchor generally being well above the work/inspection position. Thirdly NPTC says that aerial resuce is not appropriate for trees that are in a hazardous condition, so it's almost impossible to have a situation where the tree is so poor that it can be climbed but aerial rescue is not allowed. Fourthly, climbing inspections for bats are generally done very slowly and cautiously, the climber is assessing hazards in great detail before passing them, there is such a low chance of hazard failure again it's impossible to have a situation requiring rescue.

 

So where does that leave one? Working as a specialist for an ecology or bat firm, you have to be covered by their risk assessment. If they want an aerial rescuer, they know they will have to pay a competent climber to stand there and drink tea at full climber's hourly/day rate. If they ask the climber to do all the RAMS, I think it is OK for the climber/inspector to assess the tree and recod tha the risks to the climber are minimal and thus waive the need for a rescuer to be present. Otherwise you will price yourself out of work. After all, the competent assessment of a tree for hazards before and during climbing is part of the arb's skills. On the other hand, if some huge company is paying and wants to be squeaky clean on H&S, it may prefer to pay for aerial rescuer.

 

It also makes sense to climb SRT and have a ground-anchored rope. Rescue in almost all situations will be a lowering of the climber from the ground. A groundie can do that. Anyone with 2 hands can do that with a suitable friction device.

 

If our industry is to be competitive in bat inspections, it probably needs to use its competences to eliminate unnecessary costs. That way repeat work comes. No-one is trying to put bat specialists out of work, but the recent BS provides for arbs to do low-grade inspections and I believe part of the rationale for that is that more bats will be protected if the cost and hassle of inspections is kept to a minimum.

 

Me, I charge my usual climbing half-day rate including time spent writing stuff up and looking at jobs. It's an easy day physically compared to tree work.

 

In conclusion I don't think AFAG was intended to be applicable to all bat inspections, as it's not a tree work operation. It is of course working at height, and as such comes under the WaH and LOLER Regulations. Having just looked at the former, it says that "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised; and © carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe,

and that its planning includes the selection of work equipment in accordance with regulation 7. Reference to planning of work includes planning for emergencies and rescue."

 

And also "A personal fall protection system shall be used only if (a) a risk assessment has demonstrated that (i) the work can so far as is reasonably practicable be performed safely while using that system; and (ii) the use of other, safer work equipment is not reasonably practicable; and (b) the user and a sufficient number of available persons have received adequate training specific to the operations envisaged, including rescue procedures." For the avoidance of doubt a personal fall protection system includes rope access and positioning techniques, work positioning and resuce systems.

 

So there seems to be scope for being satisfied that the risks are acceptably low then the planning can dispense with the need for aerial rescue, just as it can dispense with supervision. Rescue provision is only required that is 'specific to the operation envisaged'. Adequate rescue provisions might be self-rescue. But the customer is always right, he wants, he gets, he pays.

[Firestorm]

According to AFAG402 "A minimum of two people should be present during all tree-climbing operations. One of the ground team must be available, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay."

 

 

 

Personally I think it is OTT to require an aerial rescuer to be present for all bat insections. Firstly no chainsaws will be used, thus greatly reducing the risk of any harm and also the severity of any possible harm. Secondly the heights I attain during bat inspections are less than for tree work operations, thicker stems and limbs, low chances of slipping or falling due to anchor generally being well above the work/inspection position. Thirdly NPTC says that aerial resuce is not appropriate for trees that are in a hazardous condition, so it's almost impossible to have a situation where the tree is so poor that it can be climbed but aerial rescue is not allowed. Fourthly, climbing inspections for bats are generally done very slowly and cautiously, the climber is assessing hazards in great detail before passing them, there is such a low chance of hazard failure again it's impossible to have a situation requiring rescue.

 

 

 

So where does that leave one? Working as a specialist for an ecology or bat firm, you have to be covered by their risk assessment. If they want an aerial rescuer, they know they will have to pay a competent climber to stand there and drink tea at full climber's hourly/day rate. If they ask the climber to do all the RAMS, I think it is OK for the climber/inspector to assess the tree and recod tha the risks to the climber are minimal and thus waive the need for a rescuer to be present. Otherwise you will price yourself out of work. After all, the competent assessment of a tree for hazards before and during climbing is part of the arb's skills. On the other hand, if some huge company is paying and wants to be squeaky clean on H&S, it may prefer to pay for aerial rescuer.

 

 

 

It also makes sense to climb SRT and have a ground-anchored rope. Rescue in almost all situations will be a lowering of the climber from the ground. A groundie can do that. Anyone with 2 hands can do that with a suitable friction device.

 

 

 

If our industry is to be competitive in bat inspections, it probably needs to use its competences to eliminate unnecessary costs. That way repeat work comes. No-one is trying to put bat specialists out of work, but the recent BS provides for arbs to do low-grade inspections and I believe part of the rationale for that is that more bats will be protected if the cost and hassle of inspections is kept to a minimum.

 

 

 

Me, I charge my usual climbing half-day rate including time spent writing stuff up and looking at jobs. It's an easy day physically compared to tree work.

 

 

 

In conclusion I don't think AFAG was intended to be applicable to all bat inspections, as it's not a tree work operation. It is of course working at height, and as such comes under the WaH and LOLER Regulations. Having just looked at the former, it says that "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised; and © carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe,

 

and that its planning includes the selection of work equipment in accordance with regulation 7. Reference to planning of work includes planning for emergencies and rescue."

 

 

 

And also "A personal fall protection system shall be used only if (a) a risk assessment has demonstrated that (i) the work can so far as is reasonably practicable be performed safely while using that system; and (ii) the use of other, safer work equipment is not reasonably practicable; and (b) the user and a sufficient number of available persons have received adequate training specific to the operations envisaged, including rescue procedures." For the avoidance of doubt a personal fall protection system includes rope access and positioning techniques, work positioning and resuce systems.

 

 

 

So there seems to be scope for being satisfied that the risks are acceptably low then the planning can dispense with the need for aerial rescue, just as it can dispense with supervision. Rescue provision is only required that is 'specific to the operation envisaged'. Adequate rescue provisions might be self-rescue. But the customer is always right, he wants, he gets, he pays.

 

 

All of the above is tosh.

If you are climbing anything with a rope and harness on then you need a system in place to rescue you if the worst case scenario happens.

Regardless of what you are doing in the tree.

Imagine this. A simple slip with a whack to the chin resulting in temporary unconsciousness.

You are now hanging from a harness with the batman/woman running round like a headless chicken.

How long will it take help to get there?

The building trade routinely work in harnesses and every single time have a rescue system in place.

Saying "self rescues" is utter nonsense when you've just had a clutcher up in the tree.

Regards

Richard

[Mark J]

£350 for a bat survey and write up. Caveat: depending on the site.