paradigm shift wanted

[dadio]

The term I used was "college professor".... perhaps it's a matter of cross-atlantic semantics. I googled this:

In the USA, The title of Professor is given to people that have a PhD and are teachers at any academic level. A person who is a Doctor is someone who has finished a terminal degree meaning they have completed the highest degree in their field of study above a bachelors.

 

Mark Chisholm is also a ITCC world champion tree climber from NJ that offers professional training programs, in addition to working as a full time arborist. As a production arborist, his practices can differ significantly from his teachings. I think people that offer training and do production  tree work on a regular basis are better suited to teach than one who teaches only. The main point of the original video is that SOME people that teach only are out of touch with reality, and that creates a drag on the whole industry. 

 

Until the advent of tree videos there were large segments of the industry that had never even seen high productivity in tree work.  

 

Actually I re-read the referenced post and I dd not use the term college professor, so my apologies. I use the term college teacher, by which I meant full-time college teacher, so it was a poorly written statement.

Edited February 12, 2020 by dadio

[MattyF]

What is he teaching though ? By the book tree work.. which is good if you do not have a Clue , how many times do you see home owner or hack specials with great big tears down the collars and flush cuts, teach them properly and they can expand from there.. but you are flogging a dead horse Daniel as single cuts are taught and need to be demonstrated in Britain for NPTC assessments which if you don’t have you won’t get a job climbing for a commercial company.
I still can’t believe you don’t know who jo hedger is ...

[Pete Mctree]

I can Matty. 
 

you bring some good points & ideas to the table Daniel- this is not one of them. Education starts with a strong foundation & subsequently expands from that. You are suggesting that niche techniques are taught as standard (especially when you consider the limited mewp usage here in the UK). I do not see this as progressive or beneficial.

[dadio]

Would it be too much to ask an instructor making a video to explain the reason why he is making an undercut or side cuts?

 

It just seems reasonable that if an instructor knows the parameters for when certain techniques are appropriate, the reasons for their use, and when it is not appropriate to use, they may as well not keep it a secret. What is the down side? If you really understood the subject it would only take a few extra moments to share such distinctions.

 

 I asked for the Brits take on this video and appreciate your answers. My takeaway from your answers is that the you have low expectations for training organizations in general and from this video in particular. My guess is that at the time this video was made that the instructors did not have a complete understanding of the subject, and as so much of the industry has done in the past, were simply regurgitating the unquestioned teachings that they learned.

 

And Matty I appreciate your feedback. Do you have any more detail on how "single cuts are taught and need to be demonstrated in Britain for NPTC assessments?" My guess is that they are taught in a very limited scope.

[MattyF]

I think from the blue book assessment it was demonstrate the use of cuts and situations used.
From memory and it was around 25 years ago ! For my particular course which overall was a year long and went from one week practical to one week theory followed by nptc assessments.
I can only remember it coming up In an afternoon in the class room.
I think overall on our training is it shows you the principles but as you know you can not teach every type of Wood and situation that just comes from experiences and I’m still learning every day even after all that time.
I guess ultimately they don’t want to teach cuts that can be unpredictable as a single cut will not always tear the same way... unless you know something I don’t.

[dadio]

I think tat the very scenario in the arborpod video is 100% predictable. When rigging the short but cut of a large limb, using a pretensioned line with overhead lowering point. You can count on a slow movement from a rip cut into the shoulder. So as long as you don't have a line or lanyard below the cut, this is the prefered cut. Safe, fast ,easy and reliable. 

 

 

[s o c]

An Irish opinion  ?.:

As a red raw trainee you may not yet have enough of a “feel” for the saw or the species and may not be fully sure how the piece will swing.

The video shows a cautious, almost idiot proof  procedure for a trainee to remove a simple section.

After years of experience we take the skill, judgements and timing involved in “straight through” cuts for granted .

As well as working from a basket or rope and harness it’s a lot of new stuff to get comfortable with.

I can only speak for over here but I think a lot of guys are climbing with chainsaws before they have a clue how to use them properly.

I think video may be intended for first time out before progression (for those who succeed)to more ambitious stuff under supervision .

Edited February 13, 2020 by s o c
Mistakes

[Pete Mctree]

To be honest there does need to be a shift in training, however introducing a new technique to replace another which replaced another is just a continuation of the old bullshit. 

The shift needs to be towards teaching the whys as well as the how - that means educating people to make good decisions, which is easier said than done. It is simple enough to teach generic or even niche teqniques like yours Dan within a simple training framework, but to teach the choice of technique, reasoning behind them and subtleties of the work is the holy grail and is not addressed by any traditional training I have ever encountered and probably never will.

[Mark Bolam]

That’s the thing Pete, you can’t train experience, it’s that simple.

So many variables which affect cut choice.

I’ve even had timber on the same tree react differently on consecutive days.

 

Training is just a good starting point, nothing more.

[dadio]

On 13/02/2020 at 17:08, Pete Mctree said:

To be honest there does need to be a shift in training, however introducing a new technique to replace another which replaced another is just a continuation of the old bullshit. 

The shift needs to be towards teaching the whys as well as the how - that means educating people to make good decisions, which is easier said than done. It is simple enough to teach generic or even niche teqniques like yours Dan within a simple training framework, but to teach the choice of technique, reasoning behind them and subtleties of the work is the holy grail and is not addressed by any traditional training I have ever encountered and probably never will.

GREAT POST!