QTRA Output

[ricst801]

 

 

Hopefully somebody on this forum with QTRA experience will be able to help.

 

I am seeking clarification regarding a document that has been presented to me as evidence that an assessment was carried out using the QTRA methodology.

The attached  screenshot shows the document that was provided as the result of a QTRA. As QTRA is a proprietary methodology and software used under licence, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the format and content of the enclosed screenshot are consistent with a genuine QTRA assessment output.

 

This clarification will assist me in understanding whether the assessment I have been given was produced using the legitimate QTRA system.

 

Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your response.

[Mark J]

Hello,

The image you posted strongly resembles the output from QTRA online calculator. 

Edited March 30 by Mark J

[ricst801]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

 

Is this the same as Treeplotter output? If not, what is the difference?  Only asking  as the information seems very vague.

 

Would this be all that output that would be provided when a QTRA has been completed?

 

Thanks.

 

[Mark J]

3 hours ago, ricst801 said:

Thanks for the prompt reply.

 

Is this the same as Treeplotter output? If not, what is the difference?  Only asking  as the information seems very vague.

 

Would this be all that output that would be provided when a QTRA has been completed?

 

Thanks.

 

Sorry, can't help you with that, I haven't used TreePlotter; Otiss can integrate QTRA into their surveying package. 

If the person who made the report is a registered user of QTRA it is quite likely they have provided the necessary information. A Risk of Harm of 1/300K doesn't really need a thorough investigation. 

Perhaps you could ask them to explain the methodology. 


 

Edited March 30 by Mark J

[daltontrees]

I am a QTRA user but I don't use the calculator. 

 

QTRA assessments should have 2 inputs, probability of failure, severity of harm and target probability. These can be expressed in QTRA ranges or as fractions e.g. 1/1,000. But when the target is a building, the severity and target value are effectively combined, as here, into a single input representing the repair cost of the foreseen damage. So what you have looks genuine QTRAese. It really ought to follow through and state the risk. Looks to be 'tolerable' i.e. something should be done to reduce it unless there are good reasons not to.

Edited April 1 by daltontrees