AFAG revisions

[Andy Collins]

Nice to see the pics Pete. I think the thing is H&S just do not have the man-power to police the whole area, and maybe thats why they can only work on either what they see driving around, or after an accident.

One day he will take one too many short cuts and fall, then he'll become another statistic for them to show us, maybe he'll stay lucky. I think in these times of recession, people will be more likely to ignore H&S, as tight money will dictate that the dodgy geezers will get more work.

good on ya for trying Pete, but this will never change anything.

[Yorkshireman]

I think the thing is H&S just do not have the man-power to police the whole area,

 

One day he will take one too many short cuts and fall, then he'll become another statistic for them to show us,

 

I think in these times of recession, people will be more likely to ignore H&S, as tight money will dictate that the dodgy geezers will get more work.

 

good on ya for trying Pete, .

 

the hse like all agency's have a resource limit & lets face it its all about productivity/targets within the public sector so its easier to send 1 inspector to one company that employees hundreds or even thousands

than it is for the same inspector to visit hundreds of company who's employee list is more modest.

less time, less paperwork,same number of ticks in the box.

that said its not just the Hse what about hm revenue or the local auth who have to pick up the flytipping generated by such people..... this is not just about the HSE its a multi agency problem, that they cant deal with as it will open a whole can of worms.. again leading to more resources needed to deal with a rogue, as opposed to the relevant ease when you deal with the guy who has paid his taxes worked hard all his life & contributed to society

who also just happens to have the most likelyhood of being traced prosecuted & will pay the FINES to the government purse..

 

if he is a statistic, then that will no doubt increase our insurance liability costs. That no doubt he wont be paying either along with tax I wouldnt wonder,leading to a knock on effect to profitability of reputable firms, increasing the likely hood of increased company failures due to these guys sweeping up the work that is out there these failure will inevitably leave more of the market open for his cousins

 

yep more than likely, I have never been asked by a private customer for qualifications or insurance or any certification whether for loler waste or nptc

ALL THEY WANT TO KNOW IS HOW MUCH !!! & thats what it comes down to

if your price stops them from getting another bottle of wine in their tesco shopping basket & the other guys dont well enough said ! Great isnt it

 

 

keep the faith Pete Well Done for standing up for your principles

Edited December 18, 2008 by Yorkshireman

[kipperfeet]

Great picture, i knew that the powerline clearance boys were rough, but blimey!

 

 

 

Revision of AFAG Leaflets 308 and 401 - Important changes

 

AFAG 308 Top Handled Chainsaws and AFAG 401 Tree Climbing Operations are currently being revised and the new editions are due to be published in January 2009. These leaflets will contain some significant changes which you should be aware of.

 

Two important amendments relate to changes in the advice relating to PPE (Personal Protective Equipment).

 

The first relates to helmets used during aerial tree work and the revised versions will contain the following wording "A safety helmet, HSE strongly recommend a mountaineering style helmet (complying with EN12492)".

 

The second revision relates to the use of chainsaw protective trousers and revised versions will now include the following wording "Leg protection and groin protection (complying with EN 381-5). HSE strongly recommend Type C leg protection when carrying out aerial work, because of the high all-round chainsaw cut protection. However, in circumstance where the use of Type C is impractical (e.g. because of the higher risk of heat stress associated with this type of equipment), it may be appropriate to use Type A leg protection, if this can be justified by risk assessment."

 

Both the revised AFAG leaflets will also contain strengthened wording relating to the provision of aerial rescue "A minimum of two people must be present during all tree-climbing operations. One of the team must be available on the ground, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay".

 

Copies of the revised leaflets will be available from HSE's web site http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/forindex.htm

 

 

 

 

Helmets is fair enough i guess, although, after 12 years of tree work i have never seen anyone take a side impact unless they were ragging round a tree at comps. Although i do think that climbing helmets are alot more practical for climbing in.

 

The trousers get out clause - "However, in circumstance where the use of Type C is impractical (e.g. because of the higher risk of heat stress associated with this type of equipment), it may be appropriate to use Type A leg protection, if this can be justified by risk assessment."

 

is about bloody time. Some would argue that developments in allrounders being lighter weight and drinking more water etc is suitable for combating heat exhaustion but, in all honesty, i never liked allrounders and wore type a's for years and working abroad very rarely wore ppe trousers atall. 30 -35deg is just silly and why would you put a running saw near your legs anyway?I found it very restricting wearing type c's when i was told i had to.

 

My risk assessment will say that i get very hot when climbing and must wear type a's! Easy one for any one to say surely?

 

And the "having a climber on the ground at all times, poised ready to rush up the tree in the event of an accident"! Well, its almost as if we must spend every day scared that there will be an accident instead of thinking we must spend every day getting on with our jobs efficiantly and enjoying it.

 

This stuff is there as "industry best practice" and we should work within it but it is only Guidance is it not?

 

For the newbies in the job, the rights and wrongs of what we shoud do according to afag is far more confusing than working out an A to Z of London at 7.30am And if you can't read an A to Z then you can't get to the job to be poised ready to rescue you other climber when he has an accident!

 

Don't get me wrong, i think we need it and it is mostly common sense and idiots guides that assist people gaining experience.

 

But it is very confusing is the point i am trying to make.

 

 

Does anyone know who gets the final say on these updates out of interest? no need to name drop, but if you are on here, please justify the Climber on the ground one please.

[Pete Mctree]

The issue of the "climber on the ground" is the point where my respect for the system falls apart. The cost of compliance would put most companies out of the picture and i'm not writing a risk asessment for running a chipper whilst wearing a harness!!!!

[Jamie]

I would happily get every ticket under the sun if it meant at the end of the day i was paid more for it and the cowboys peanlised. I drove past some guy a few weeks ago 6 foot above his 2 extension ladder one handing a rear handled saw. i turned to my mum and commented on there being another 'chainsaw accident statistic waiting to happen' i should have turned and got a picture.

 

we all know the problems

 

Jamie

[Yorkshireman]

when they state c types, this is because they have statisics

some trousers Ie sip freedoms are a happy blend of the two, with calf protection in addition to the a type spec

I wonder how many injurys climbers have sustained in the back of their thigh from a chainsaw. I would be interested to see the stats on that one

 

re climber on the ground ready to assist without delay , if you have a two man team then the ground guy is going to be suttling to and fro with arisings, should he be wearing a harness & if so he cant then use the chipper As guidance states non snag clothing, so a build up of arisings will happen ususlly in a confined area which leads to the increase in trip hazards, muscular injurys sorting through a crows nest of brash once the climber has decended from the tree

 

or a three man team

lead climber + 2 one groundie & one climber ,can two not be in trees at the same time without another available guy & kit what happens when holidays or absence or resignation mean only one climber, can the groundie stand must they be coc'd, who pays for all this training who provides all this training who pays for the equipment & the checks

I approached our local college & was told April for courses

 

Do these people understand the practicalities of urban Arboriculture ?

[kipperfeet]

My point exactly yorkshireman. I'm not sure that it is exactly saying that a climber must be on the ground wearing a harness because that would surely be stupid, even for the hse to think but i'm assuming it means that if there is a climber in the tree working then the other climber MUST be on the ground and not in another tree.

 

If you are paying two climbers to climb then it is more cost effective to have them both climbing. I am 100% that there must be at least two people capable of rescue on any climbing job but if your lucky enough to have a good climber and the boss is a good climber then obviosly they would both climb to speed the job up instead of two twiddling thumbs on the deck.

 

I also think that a spare rope and rescue kit in the van for that purpose is not to much to ask. i guess this may speed up the process and save getting the second climbers kit out of the tree and ready to do a rescue.

 

 

Again, it is unclear about its intetions this new guideline! Some would take this literally iguess and they would probably go out of buissiness and others would ignore it and press on regardlass.

[Yorkshireman]

Some would take this literally iguess and they would probably go out of buissiness and others would ignore it and press on regardlass.

 

KF

so basically what your saying is that the tens of thousands of pounds that this will have undoubtedly cost the tax payer to get this to the consultation stage is a complete & utter waste of time resource & money which at best will force more onto the dole que

 

Those funds could have possibly been directed to catch bad practitioners such as the chap picutured in petes Post.. increasing the likely hood of promoting those who do work safely & probably pay their taxes too,

thus helping the economic situation...etc etc

 

interesting .......... aint it

Edited December 18, 2008 by Yorkshireman

[Andy Collins]

I think that just because we are discussing this topic shows that we are all way above the chap in petes pic. My own opinion on the AFAG issue is less clear cut. Those recommendations are there, and no doubt most of us will try to follow them, and try and be safer in the way we work.

Do we follow these guidelines because we are told to, or because we recognise that they are there to help us?

back to the chap in Petes pic, do you suppose he has even seen the original afag leaflets, would he read them if shown them? I think we all know the answer here, but my issue is that afag H&S et al are preaching to the converted, surely the emphasis needs to be educating the masses now?

[Laz]

Some very good points raised.

 

But rather than talk amongst yourselves, join this discussion forum that is set up by HSE ESPECIALLY to hear from you (us):

 

http://webcommunities.hse.gov.uk/inovem/inovem.ti/afagpublic/messageshowthread?threadid=1006

 

You will have to reg your email and a password, then Go to discussions.

 

The common complaint from those at the top that can effect change, is they don't hear from enough grass roots to effect change.

 

Please, get involved.