National companies putting us a step back.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 hour ago, eggsarascal said:

I'd guess, and that's all it is, the vast majority of the certification is office based, with maybe a crew being actually assessed on site, If it's anything like some of the certification/accreditation in the trade I work in subbies are brought in to do the on site assessment. If it is it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Safe Contractor springs to mind. Happy to be corrected.

Nope, 50/50 in reality, with site safety inspection(s), completed tree planting & pruning works + arb tech knowledge, plus workshop, store, yard, chip / timber storage too. With the smaller businesses this is probably 40/60 office / site as the focus is very much on outcomes and performance.

Cheers,

Paul

[benedmonds]

9 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Nope, 50/50 in reality, with site safety inspection(s), completed tree planting & pruning works + arb tech knowledge, plus workshop, store, yard, chip / timber storage too. With the smaller businesses this is probably 40/60 office / site as the focus is very much on outcomes and performance.

Cheers,

Paul

The inspection is a thoroughly unpleasant experience.... You basically have someone examine everything you are doing and pick out everything that is not perfect. At the end of the day you feel like you have been mauled as it is not nice being told what your not doing right all day..   

 

But it does make sure you are up to standard and doing everything to best practice. If like me you are sending out teams it is good to have that critical eye so you know if it hits the fan you have done what you should. You could hire in freelancers for the day, and work in a different manner from normal, but half the reason we bother with being ARBAC is that it forces us to ensure we are keep all the other stuff up to date. Things that might not seem important like out of date first aid kits and health monitoring.  

 

If I was a 2 man band concentrating on domestic, with lots of work I probably would not bother with ARBAC. But if you want commercial work or as an employer of teams you send out then I think it's got its uses.. It can't be perfect, but nothing is..

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

12 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

The inspection is a thoroughly unpleasant experience.... You basically have someone examine everything you are doing and pick out everything that is not perfect. At the end of the day you feel like you have been mauled as it is not nice being told what your not doing right all day..   

 

If I was a 2 man band concentrating on domestic, with lots of work I probably would not bother with ARBAC. But if you want commercial work or as an employer of teams you send out then I think it's got its uses.. It can't be perfect, but nothing is..

 

Hi Ben, thanks for your post.

 

Apologies for the 'mauling' but as scheme manager I'm pleased to learn the standards have been applied and assessed rigorously...but hopefully reasonably / fairly. 

 

Particularly as a participant business in the scheme ("thank you") please don't hesitate to volunteer any suggestion you may have as to how we can improve the scheme and/or the assessment process.

 

Thank you for your last comment, quite 'insightful'...and hopefully avoiding the need to be 'hindsightful' (a strapline crabbed from Achilles but very apt relating to your comment.)

 

ATB,

Paul

 

[swinny]

How can the AA assess companies and how they work if their assessors are not nptc qualified assessors?

 

Mainly to do with saw work and climbing and saw safety works.

 

seems a bit false to me

Edited April 10, 2019 by swinny

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

14 hours ago, Andrew McEwan said:

I'm more cynical and think the poplar was perhaps just the incident that  crew didn't get away with, but either way if you view it as an exceptional case it shows the AAC sampling plan is missing those crews operating like that. I suspect you don't need me to give a run through of how to run certification to any particular standard, but any work like that is only as good as the sampling plan you start off with as per ISO 17021.

 

Re the work diary, nice to hear you are able to have some flexible visits, but if AAC needs to sample rigging activities the assessors sampling plan needs to reflect that and request that info. I think most contractors would mainly know where a rigging kit is going to come out beforehand.

Morning Andrew, hopefully a little more awake now to better respond (apologies.)

 

The principle of sampling is great, and applied effectively is very useful to see a representative sample of, for instance, documents or process outcomes etc. Applying that principle in an office, or factory etc., environment is a fairly straight forward process. Applying it to arb teams working across a region on differing operations is logistically fair more challenging, not to say we can't / shouldn't, and as I mentioned at the 'interim' reassessment (Yr.3 of 4 Yr. cycle) where the operations we require to see is much less specific, i.e. 'aerial tree work,' we do to some extent.  The initial assessment, or full reassessment (Yr.1 or the 4 Yr. cycle), is much more prescriptive in terms of the operations, i.e. "..involving rigging", and as an actual job, and hence the likelihood of multiple teams being suitably deployed is much reduced.

 

However, certainly a very useful comment and one I will mull, as is my 'MO', over the coming miles on the road...thank you.

 

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 minutes ago, swinny said:

How can the AA assess companies and how they work if their assessors are not nptc qualified assessors?

 

Mainly to do with saw work and climbing and saw safety works.

 

seems a bit false to me

Hi Swinny, thanks for your question, very relevant.

 

Many/most of the assessors are also Lantra trainers / NPTC assessors, or have been so, or are NPTC qualified themselves so understand what "good practice" looks like. They also have 'industry experience,' albeit not as extensive as many operators, and they are formally H&S qualified, i.e. NEBOSH, and SSIP registered auditors and hence understand H&S management, and operational safety, very well.

 

Whilst a very important, and key, aspect of the assessment process, the onsite operational stuff is 1 of 4 modules to be considered and hence the assessor needs all round knowledge and experience.

 

Cheers,

Paul 

 

 

[LincolnSteve]

Having been through two "interim" assessments and a "full" assessment in the last five years by three different assessors I can vouch for all the comments that say it isn't easy, but I do have some observations;

 

Firstly, and perhaps the most important; everything the AA assess us on is something which we should be doing by law or is best practice based on industry guidance. Just take a minute to digest that: The minimum standard is what you should be doing anyway, irrespective of whether you are approved or not. 

 

If you're a big company they will assess multiple teams and require you have others on standby if they require it. The number of sites they assess is based on how many staff you have, so if you're a 2/3 man band they will assess less sites than if you have 25 staff members. So in theory, if you have multiple teams, hopefully they will see several teams, not just the golden boys. 

 

The assessors are really knowledgeable, they have been working in the arb industry for a long time and know what the standards should be. They are fair and generally have your best interests at heart. They pick up faults not to put you down as a company/individual, but because you should be doing it by law/best practice. In essence, they are highlighting failings which, if addressed, may keep your arse out of court if something bad happens. 

 

I note the comments about the assessment being an unpleasant experience; if you can't take constructive criticism you probably won't like an AAAC assessment. We go into every assessment with an open mind, an acceptance that we are not perfect and that the assessors will find faults. We then work to correct those faults (some are easier than others). If you adopt an open minded approach you will feel less like you've been grilled and bashed all day (for us it is a two day assessment!!) and that you have some valued feedback from an external party who wants to make your company better. 

 

The bigger issue doesn't seem to be the AAAC scheme being too soft or working to lesser standards (although I do agree there are faults), it seems many companies are not working to legal/best practice standards and do not seem to have a desire to do so, believing the rules don't count for them or just being unaware of what the rules are. That's fine, up until something happens and the solicitors are involved and the HSE or courts are going through your business with a fine tooth comb. Personally, I'd rather have an AA assessor grilling me than a barrister, at least one of them has my best interests at heart! 

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by LincolnSteve