BS3998:2008 Draft Section 7 - General

[Amelanchier]

Hands up who like paperwork?

 

7.2 Instructions prior to carrying out tree work.

 

...The contractor should prepare a risk assessment and method statement (including quality of

work), and ensure there is a clear written specification of the work.

 

You've got TPO consent on the condition that you follow BS3998:2008... wheres your method statement then? Reasonable?

 

Bye bye to natural crotch rigging...

 

7.10 Damage caused to trees.

...Where a tree, or part of a tree, is used as an anchor or to redirect a load, precautions should be

taken to avoid damaging it (see Annex J).

J.1 General

Using a tree as an anchor point applies pressure that can cause damage to the cambium. There

are three applications where a tree may be required as an anchor point:

a) to assist with felling a tree in chosen direction;

b) pulling a tree (or stump) out by its roots;

c) when using rigging systems.

 

Better buy more rigging gear to comply with the new draft 3998?

[Andy Clark]

We've had some involvement within the consultation for this, and i think i kinda get the gist of what they're trying to do....

 

From what i understand, it's trying to put more of an emphasis on the techniques used, rather than just defining the cuts, shape, balance.. blah blah blah...

 

Theoretically meaning that working to BS:3998 not only means that you prune trees to a specifically defined standard, but that the work is also carried out in a specifically defined manor, in a vain attempt to stop pikeys saying that they do work to BS:3998, and then climbing in jeans and with an old shoelace for a climbing line.

 

I admire what they're trying to achieve, but not so sure that this is the right way of doing it.

[Lee Winger]

I can think of a lot more important things to be worried about than natural crotch rigging..

[Andy Collins]

 

Theoretically meaning that working to BS:3998 not only means that you prune trees to a specifically defined standard, but that the work is also carried out in a specifically defined manor, in a vain attempt to stop pikeys saying that they do work to BS:3998, and then climbing in jeans and with an old shoelace for a climbing line.

 

I admire what they're trying to achieve, but not so sure that this is the right way of doing it.

 

I dont see how these changes will change anything in the way people carry out their day-to-day operating procedures. Those who already use all the kit, will do so, and those who dont, wont. What it will do is create a paper trail, so in the event of prosecution, there is the evidence, that if you said in your R/A or M/s you will do a job a certain way and your dont, the LPA have a stronger case. The less than professional types aint gonna give two hoots for it.

But stil, I suppose those at the BSI have to justify their salaries in this day and age. As this economic blip takes a hold I think we will see more and more willing to flout the rules and regs, in order to earn a (dis)honest buck.

For example, I visited a site recently where a TPO tree was being removed by an experienced arborist, who is also an instructor, AA member, RFS qualified, his ground crew on the 1st day was a 14 year old lad, and a fencing contractor. He had undercut local companies to get the job, yet couldnt ticketed groundstaff to help him. On the 2nd day he did have a ticketed groundsman for the felling of the butt. My issue is that the 1st day there was more potential for an accident, with the lack of experience on the ground, and no qual. aerial rescue persons on site. I can see an increase in this kind of "shortcut" as things get tight, saving money on the labour, to maintain the profit margin.

[Bundle 2]

I cant see that you would really need to acquire a great deal of rigging kit to comply with this simple legislation....Of course you can buy as much as you want.

[Yorkshireman]

For example, I visited a site recently where a TPO tree was being removed by an experienced arborist, who is also an instructor, AA member, RFS qualified, his ground crew on the 1st day was a 14 year old lad, and a fencing contractor. He had undercut local companies to get the job, .

 

 

How often & lets be honest do customer 's

 

A ask to see your tickets

B ask to see your insurance

c your accreditiations

d Memberships

 

versus how much mate !!! er cant ! you do better i've got another two blokes coming to quote

 

I appluade the new standard for its attemps

 

my issue is what will it change,

 

as its will be ni on impossible to prosecute.

unless legislation is changed then it has no teeth, other than on Tpo or conserved trees

 

and even then will it matter this is with regard to another British Standard 5837

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2972

 

Also are local authoritys going to be bound by this, or do they get an exemption with the publics tree stock ??

 

although it will give the gear freaks among us a valid excuse to carry two tonnes of kit to each TD

[Yorkshireman]

. I can see an increase in this kind of "shortcut" as things get tight, saving money on the labour, to maintain the profit margin.

 

that is a matter for the HSE & in that case the AA if you can prove it

 

I agree some practioneers of all skill & competancy levels could see a change in business, if the credit crunch squeezes harder

this may in some cases lead to a alteration in work practises, hopefully only short term

though in my opinion professionalism will always win through , If that which must be done is enforced

 

We've all seen the rigger boot & 12 old groundie brigade (the worst was at a school 'public monies')

 

As professionals within the tree care industry

if we know of dangerous operations or serious breachs in legislation, we should have no quarms about informing the relevant bodies.

I HAVE !!

If they then choose not to act then thats their decision,

just keep it on file !!

[Andy Collins]

As I said, I think we will see very little change, although it may give the LPA bigger teeth to bite down on the cowboy element.