QTRA...is it worth it?

[10 Bears]

Hello Jules,

 

No offence taken when there is a considered difference of opinion. I contribute here to try to learn more then pontificate, I believe '2 ears and one mouth' is a good general rule to follow.

 

I agree that for some clients such as the ones Kevin mentioned e.g. county councils, ISS, Thulborn, Glendale, Hi Line etc. and no doubt your client too, they feel that a publicised/licensed 'system' with defined application and consideration of probability etc. will help them deal with their potential liabilities. As you say, horses for courses and I agree, however, the point I tried to make to the OP was that QTRA is not the only way to deal with the same problem - there may be other solutions available for him.

 

About VTA, the full line was, "if you follow the basic principles of VTA, use up to date tree knowledge, are methodical and record what you survey etc. of course, you will also need educational qualifications or experience to help you justify your opinions expressed in the survey", so what I was getting at is you will need to use all of these elements in your surveying in order to have your own system that would be a suitable alternative to doing a course. For example I mention educational qualifications, so if the OP only has GCSEs and no formal tree quals at L2 or above, then he may be on a sticky wicket when it comes to justifying his opinions in regards to remedial action or otherwise. It just may be that he needs a training course, QTRA, PTI or whatever in order to fill the gaps in his knowledge.

 

The Goode Vs. Burnside case was heard at the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court, which yes you are right is an Australian version of our PINS. I appreciate that doesn't affect our legal system, but I believe the judgement holds gravitas in any case as an impartial review was carried out about the system, and it simply came out wanting. The position of the commissioner supports my previously developed views, so it reinforces my position on QTRA. I suppose with it being considered the framework of legality, heard in a court and judgement passed by a commissioner the easiest way to describe it at the time was as a legal case - so, that tells me, I shouldn't cut corners when posting!

 

There are the cases you mention yes, but these broadly focus on principles of surveying, levels of qualifications and/or experience - unless I missed something from them? All this is important certainly, but the reason for highlighting the treatment of QTRA was that it was specifically considered as a 'system' in its own right, not just on wider principles of surveying. That said, as the wider principles of what is legally acceptable in surveying are defined in these cases, hence why I outlined VTA, quals, record keeping etc. to the OP.

 

Actually, I think its time we heard again from the OP so he can fill in some gaps. What are your levels of quals/experience and do you know if any of the known surveying training courses are actually considered essential for the work you are looking for? Another thought that came to mind is that the OP may not be geared up for big contracts with the companies that Kevin mentioned - so again, perhaps a more general course is in order?

 

Oh and Joules, M.E. owns your soul and you know it...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

What's M.E.??

[Gary Prentice]

Oh and Joules, M.E. owns your soul and you know it...

 

:biggrin:

 

And it was so a good post til then:biggrin:

[Gary Prentice]

What's M.E.??

 

Come now Kevin, the system originator!

[daltontrees]

What's M.E.??

 

Mike ellison, owner of QTRA. If 10 Bears could see the frank opinions I express to "M.E." I think he'd reassess whether I have slipped into the clutches of the dark side. The grief I get from the QTRA folk is that I try and adapt QTRA, partly as improvements and partly as customisation, and you'd think I was trying to drive on the wrong side of the road. Not M.E., mind, he's circumspect.

[daltontrees]

Hello Jules,

 

....

 

All good, all good. Yes it is so important to be thorough and keep good records for each tree and VTA is a good solid basis for that.

 

I'd say that to do risk assessments, whether by QTRA or TRAQ or THREATS or any defensible system you probably need to have knwoledge and experience of trees and tree inspection, plus a core qualification of some kind, plus a good working knowledge of VTA, plus the PTI ticket and, as far as systems go, a pass or registration in the system.

 

My comments on all those cases was really that the courts aren't fussed about systems, and have noted that parties have to a greater or lesser extent had adequate systems in place, wherher it is Gomples kicking the tree now and again, the lady inthe Stage coanch noting the tree was in full leaf, and in Bowen there was acknowledgement of the tolerance of hazards in poorly frequented locatiions, and in Poll I think there was adoption of the zoning principle.

 

The more I know sometimes it seems the less I understand....

[daltontrees]

Just remembered, David Lonsdale's stated preferred approach to tree risk assessemnt is QTRA. Gotta count for something. And Jeremy Barrell pilloried QTRA at the Exeter conference. Gotta count for something. Erm.....

[10 Bears]

If 10 Bears could see the frank opinions I express to "M.E." I think he'd reassess whether I have slipped into the clutches of the dark side.

 

Sorry to admit but I am laughing a little here! All just in fun of course...

 

Where do you have these frank exchanges? An earlier thread on here, UKTC or other?

 

Actually, I've not used UKTC (don't need another distraction!), but if there is worthwhile commentary that I'm missing, it may be time to start...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Mike ellison, owner of QTRA. If 10 Bears could see the frank opinions I express to "M.E." I think he'd reassess whether I have slipped into the clutches of the dark side. The grief I get from the QTRA folk is that I try and adapt QTRA, partly as improvements and partly as customisation, and you'd think I was trying to drive on the wrong side of the road. Not M.E., mind, he's circumspect.

 

Come now Kevin, the system originator!

 

Der..... I was having a dim moment!! I wouldn't have got there unless you'd pointed it out though... I was away on a completely different thought thread!

 

It's gone a bit quiet on the QTRA messages since you eased back on the fight Jules!

[10 Bears]

I'd say that to do risk assessments, whether by QTRA or TRAQ or THREATS or any defensible system you probably need to have knwoledge and experience of trees and tree inspection, plus a core qualification of some kind, plus a good working knowledge of VTA, plus the PTI ticket and, as far as systems go, a pass or registration in the system.

 

Yes, this is what I was saying earlier, although perhaps in fewer words so the message wasn't as clear. The OP will need VTA, qualifications, experience, working knowledge etc. in order to be able to develop their own defensible system, and with a good amount of the right education - he should have most/all of these elements in his own system.

 

So Lonsdale supports QTRA, and Barrell doesn't. I think that puts us firmly back at step one. Is QTRA worth it?...