QTRA... V.T.A..... Or Lantra Pro tree inspection

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

So you want to get started on tree assesmnet reports as a consulting side line, which one of the courses methods would you choose?

 

VTA needs no liceance or constant financial input.

 

QTRA I hope it doesnt soley rely on that wheel to asses risks!

 

LANTRA>..... is that all its cracked up to be?

 

whos done what?

 

what do you think of the methods various pros cons?

 

if your afraid to be honest and open you may PM off the record.

 

thanks in advance

[combined tree services]

personally i have worked with several LA TO's that use QTRA and to be honest i think it works really well , take for instance a recent oak tree that was reportedly "dangerous" because a member of the public had made such a statement to the council they had to get the TO in to inspect it . While inspecting the tree the woman that made the call to the council came out and asked what was going to happen ? so the TO explained that the tree needed some minor dead wooding and a 1 meter crown lift . The woman then goes mad stating that the tree is dangerous and that she can not see how it can be left ! so the TO goes through the QTRA asessment with the woman and explains exactly what he is doing and how QTRA works. The woman is now happy to have the tree retained and for the works to be done .

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

does it involve using that three phase wheel of fortune?

[Amelanchier]

does it involve using that three phase wheel of fortune?

 

Not necessarily. Think of it as a rough calculator.

[Amelanchier]

You'll need to be familiar with VTA to pass the LANTRA award and although you can undertake some aspects of QTRA without it, you'll need that knowledge to make it worthwhile in an arboricultural sense.

 

I would err in favour of the LANTRA for a starter because its assessed and demonstrates a wider understanding although we're kind of comparing apples with pears...

[sean freeman]

A view from upside down land:

 

I doubt there is any consultant out there that does not make use of some aspect of VTA methodolgy, the problem from my perspective comes in terms of the extent to which the limitations of VTA are understood and expressed within the particular consultants work.

 

Whilst it is true that any consultant can get hold of the basic (and arguablythe more advanced) information relating to VTA as an assessment methodology, my own experience is that without exposing oursleves to formal training in VTA the results of the self "training" can be very hit and miss.

 

The critical reviews of some of the statistical aspects of Claus Mattheck's work in the last 8yrs has I believe helped (those that wish to be helped) identifiy the limits not just of the practical applications for VTA but more broadly many of the assumptions we all carry with us before stepping out of the office.

 

Anyone being exposed to VTA as an assessment method today should if they care to make a little effort, benefit from the experience of all the other working consultants that have been applying the method and the reams of published works detailing the evolution of it application.

 

I am a licensed user of QTRA, and I wish to state (as I have written in a number of fora) just how much I have benefitted from being exposed to the different perspective that this target driven risk assessment methdology provides. QTRA is just another assessment tool that a consultant can apply to a specific task or tasks within a project, but it has provided me (and many others who go to the training) with a means to balance the often very skewed perspective we can all have about trees in our urban environment.

 

I also think that the VTA training provided by Mike Ellison and David Evans helps place QTRA within the context of the kind of regular assessments that many of us are requested to carry out.

 

Yes its a lot more than the wheel!...I hardly ever use that any more, but it can be a very useful means of conveying the principles of the methodology to engineers and interestingly those that assess bushfire risks (they have an almost identical device with sliding vanes).

 

Personally any methodology I apply has to be rigorous, it has to stand up to critical review to challenges by those who disagree with my conclusions or my recommendations the people who have asked for my help need to understand (if they want to) how I assessed the tree(s) and how I reached my conclusions. I don't mean that the aim is to create Arborists in every client (though that would be nice in many ways!!), but I am not interested in any approach that hides behind jargon, that cannot be explained in a direct and clear manner.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

"but I am not interested in any approach that hides behind jargon, that cannot be explained in a direct and clear manner"

 

is that to something specific? or just in general.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

You'll need to be familiar with VTA to pass the LANTRA award and although you can undertake some aspects of QTRA without it, you'll need that knowledge to make it worthwhile in an arboricultural sense.

 

I would err in favour of the LANTRA for a starter because its assessed and demonstrates a wider understanding although we're kind of comparing apples with pears...

 

how do you mean apples with pears tony?

 

are they not all for the same purpose?

 

Oh and i am familiar with VTA, its more wether i should do the QTRA or the lantra next!

[Bundle 2]

I am LANTRA Pro Tree Insp'...QTRA licensed user and VTA trained. I dont see any value in deconstruction that seeks to separate one thing from another. More that each contributes an element of tree related issues that without the others, is somehow less effective.

I would consider myself at a stage that is perhaps the minimum necessary to work in a consultative capacity. I have also trained in BS5837, TPO legislation .....

Quals' are a bit a load of BS tbh. You can hold them and not be any good. You can be perhaps completely without formal academic qualifications, and be a very knowledgeable and effective arborists...one does not necessarily follow the other.

[sean freeman]

"but I am not interested in any approach that hides behind jargon, that cannot be explained in a direct and clear manner"

 

is that to something specific? or just in general.

 

No just a general point that I think applies in the UK just as much as it does here in upside down land.

 

It is my opinion that some consultants present their assessments in part or in total as something of akin to a magic show, smoke mirrors and coloured printouts. It could be argued that this is actually what some clients want, and perhaps there is some truth in that.

 

My point would be that if you do not really understand the foundation of the methods you are applying during your assessments, and are not able to explain them...then you can expect at some point in the future to be undone, hopefully not in a formal environment like a Land and Environment Court.

 

I totally agree with Bundle that to attempt to deconstruct the connections between the various many approaches that make up the foundation of our professional practice is counterproductive.