TRAQ to replace QTRA

[Chris at eden]

This is making less and less sense. CAS says that QTRA is deficient by having no minimum entry requirement. It says TRAQ is better in part by having a level 2 qualification requirement. But membership of CAS requires level 4. Anyone getting into CAS and having QTRA surely meets and exceeds the requirements of CAS and TRAQ by some considerable extent?

 

I agree Jules, this seems odd. L2 is not a consultancy level qualification anyway. NTSG makes reference to L3 being minimum for those doing detailed assessment and PTI also has a pre-requisite of L3. I would personally think this is minimum.

 

I thought TRAQ was a tree inspection qualification similar to PTI while QTRA is about using a quantified system which has been tested in a court setting. Why is there not room for both?

 

I haven't done either so I may be way off!

[daltontrees]

Thanks, as you are someone whose opinion I have come to respect on Arbtalk, I attach weight to your comments on this suibject. And immediately on looking at your company's website I see that you are CAS accredited in PTI. Maybe there's the answer to my dilemma. If it is possible to be a CAS member and to do tree risk assessment under the PTI competence I don't need to concern myself with TRAQ. I have already satisfied myself professionally that TRAQ is a bit like trying to wire a plug while wearing gloves and sunglasses.

[Paul Barton]

I think one of the attractions of using TRAQ as an area of competence within the CAS model is that TRAQ is an assessed course where after the days of training you are required to sit an exam and pass with a particular score. There is no such assessment in the QTRA course so theoretically you could attend the course, misunderstand the concepts but still be a licensed QTRA user.

 

It would be nice if there were a way to 'endorse' any arb that has a robust and defensible tree survey method that includes risk assessment, as I am sure there are some good methods being used by individuals that just aren't published and therefore recognised. However, it would be almost impossible to assess multiple approaches so CAS is looking to pick one which fits best.

 

Jules - in reply to your above post, yes, you can use the PTI as an accredited competency area and ignore the risk assessment competency if you wish.

[daltontrees]

I think one of the attractions of using TRAQ as an area of competence within the CAS model is that TRAQ is an assessed course where after the days of training you are required to sit an exam and pass with a particular score. There is no such assessment in the QTRA course so theoretically you could attend the course, misunderstand the concepts but still be a licensed QTRA user.

 

It would be nice if there were a way to 'endorse' any arb that has a robust and defensible tree survey method that includes risk assessment, as I am sure there are some good methods being used by individuals that just aren't published and therefore recognised. However, it would be almost impossible to assess multiple approaches so CAS is looking to pick one which fits best.

 

Jules - in reply to your above post, yes, you can use the PTI as an accredited competency area and ignore the risk assessment competency if you wish.

 

Ok, I shall dingy the TRAQ/QTRA thing for now, having just signed up for CAS based on PTI. I'll see what the requirements for valuation accreditaiton are, but I suppose there will be some requirement for an assessed CTLA course, even though I could (and unfortunately sometimes involuntarily do) do valuations in my sleep.

[Paul Barton]

That's interesting, I was just about to post about the upcoming valuation course running at Wyre Forest Council on 30th June and 1st July - then I noticed the details were wrong on the CAS website, oops.

 

Anyway, it's being taught by Jon Heuch and includes CTLA, CAVAT and Heliwell I think. I'd like to go but can't make the dates.

 

I'll quizz you about CTLA on June 10th!

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

Monte Carlo Simulation software apps are the way forward. Non-standardised canonical discriminant function coefficients all the way, long overdue.

[daltontrees]

 

I'll quizz you about CTLA on June 10th!

 

You'll regret it!

[Jon Heuch]

I thought TRAQ was a tree inspection qualification similar to PTI while QTRA is about using a quantified system which has been tested in a court setting.

 

Arborists (call them what you will if you don't like the term) have a tendency to avoid or divert this sort of debate with the "well someone used it in Court, so it must be OK" argument. Remember, any system - risk assessment, valuation, root growth or other technical matter - got into Court because an expert took it in. Barristers and judges can apply common sense but are unlikely to engage on technical details. The credibility of any system in Court relies on a number of factors - its provenance, its widespread acceptance, its usefulness. If two experts agree in Court over the use of any system the Court (Judge, jury, barristers/advocates (for those North of the border) may still disagree).

 

So the fact that someone has quoted QTRA in Court merely reflects that the expert (or other witness) thought it worthwhile to do so; nothing more. We can say a system has been tested in Court but it's not really the place for testing all aspects of a system - peers, professional bodies and experience in use should be significant parts of the process of testing.

[Chris at eden]

Arborists (call them what you will if you don't like the term) have a tendency to avoid or divert this sort of debate with the "well someone used it in Court, so it must be OK" argument. Remember, any system - risk assessment, valuation, root growth or other technical matter - got into Court because an expert took it in. Barristers and judges can apply common sense but are unlikely to engage on technical details. The credibility of any system in Court relies on a number of factors - its provenance, its widespread acceptance, its usefulness. If two experts agree in Court over the use of any system the Court (Judge, jury, barristers/advocates (for those North of the border) may still disagree).

 

So the fact that someone has quoted QTRA in Court merely reflects that the expert (or other witness) thought it worthwhile to do so; nothing more. We can say a system has been tested in Court but it's not really the place for testing all aspects of a system - peers, professional bodies and experience in use should be significant parts of the process of testing.

 

 

Wasn't really my point.

 

The point was, QTRA is a scoring system but PTI is so much more than that and doesn't actually require the use of a quantified system. This is re-enforced by the fact that Cheshire Woodlands actually recommend that candidates do the VTA course the day before QTRA to cover that aspect.

 

PTI is more about VTA and the legal system, recording data, etc, rather than scoring. I thought TRAQ was more along that line but I may be wrong? Why not do both was my point but I think Paul covered that with the answer about the lack of an exam.

 

Interesting comments about court though.

[Andy Clark]

I think the important point that seems to me to have been overlooked within this emerging debate, is that all of these methodologies, systems, call them what you will, are simply tools in order to achieve a means to an end. Nothing more. (With PTI being training in order to use those tools in practice)

 

Somebody may choose to use Dewalt branded screwdrivers another may prefer Draper, or Stanley...... they all do the same job, just provide a different means in order to achieve that job.

 

Remember that in terms of tree risk assessment, it stems pretty much from the HSE sim...... which intimates that a practical and effective tree management process should echo the principles within the management of health and safety at work regs. i.e, carried out on a risk assessment basis.

 

In terms of the Courts, the only reason that a judge will even take any of these systems into account, is as demonstratable evidence that the "job" was carried out correctly - the "job" being that a tree has been appropriately managed based on it's level of risk.

 

As long as that box is ticked, and the defendant can show proactively that they have complied with the risk assessment process, it doesn't really matter if the tree was evaluated using THREATS, TRAQ, QTRA, or any other peer reviewed methodology.

 

So if CAS want to lean towards TRAQ as opposed to QTRA, to be frank, it's no real biggie. Certainly doesn't imply that one system is "better" or "worse" than the other.