QTRA...is it worth it?

[Dilz]

Hello.

 

does anyone have experience of the QTRA course? what kind of level is it at - Ive done tree risk assessments as part of other qualifications, but some u up coming potential contracts are looking favorably on those who have a completed a specific course dedicated to tree risk assessment.

[Gary Prentice]

There's plenty of threads on QTRA, discussing the pro/cons and accuracy etc You may be better reading some of them to get an overview.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Lots of info in previous threads and on the QTRA webpage. If you feel like it makes sense after reading the info on the QTRA webpage, it's likely you'll get through the course and exam. On the other hand, if you feel baffled after reading the webpage, it might be harder.

 

It might also be worth having a look on the "find a QTRA user" search tab (Quantified Tree Risk Assessment) to see who is already registered in your area. There are only 2 independents (including me) in Cornwall so that was a big plus for my decision making.

[10 Bears]

I really have problems with the concept of QTRA. My personal opinion of course, but I believe it to be inherently flawed.

 

Its also the only tree assessment system, *that I am aware of*, that had its procedure and use considered in a legal case, and simply, the judge found it wanting as it demands a "fair degree of subjectivity" - and therefore isn't really *objectively* quantified at all.

 

The case was Goode Vs City of Burnside, 2007, if you are interested. To be fair there are some counter comments to the judges summing up from Mike Ellison, on the QTRA website - but if you read all the information carefully, Mike is just protecting his business and the judges views are spot on.

 

To the OP, just to give a different view, you don't need to do any course and can develop your own tree survey method. This will be perfectly defensible in law 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.

 

Or, simply, you may want the security of having done a course and to follow someone else's method? It won't give you any further legal protection, but it may just set your mind at ease if that's what you need. I've not done any formal tree surveying course, but I am told this is a good one. It may help get you these contracts you are looking for?

[10 Bears]

A follow up thought here, where are you in the country Dilz?

 

There are meet-ups for tree climbers, but perhaps there may be an opportunity to arrange a meet-up for chaps with different tree surveying techniques? This may give you the chance to try out a couple of methods before you buy, so to speak?

[arb culture]

I really have problems with the concept of QTRA. My personal opinion of course, but I believe it to be inherently flawed.

 

Its also the only tree assessment system, *that I am aware of*, that had its procedure and use considered in a legal case, and simply, the judge found it wanting as it demands a "fair degree of subjectivity" - and therefore isn't really *objectively* quantified at all.

 

The case was Goode Vs City of Burnside, 2007, if you are interested. To be fair there are some counter comments to the judges summing up from Mike Ellison, on the QTRA website - but if you read all the information carefully, Mike is just protecting his business and the judges views are spot on.

 

To the OP, just to give a different view, you don't need to do any course and can develop your own tree survey method. This will be perfectly defensible in law 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.

 

Or, simply, you may want the security of having done a course and to follow someone else's method? It won't give you any further legal protection, but it may just set your mind at ease if that's what you need. I've not done any formal tree surveying course, but I am told this is a good one. It may help get you these contracts you are looking for?

 

Woo Hoo!!!! I am not alone

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It may not be to everyone's taste - each to their own....

 

But if the contracts you are hoping to tender for specify a particular system or qualification then you'd be restricting your chances of winning the tender if you don't meet the initial spec.

 

Look at the "type" of organisations that are subscribed to the system - many county councils, ISS, Thulborn, Glendale, Hi Line, Amey, Warwick college, various consultancy and surveying outfits - generally pretty heavy weight, well established high turnover organisations. If those are the target contracts you are aiming for, or potential future employers even, you will have to decide if they are all wrong!

 

10 bears mentions LANTRAs PTI course above and I'd agree, that is also a very well regarded and useful addition to the toolkit. PTI knowledge combined with QTRA methodology is a potent combination in my view.

 

Have you had a read through the extensive QTRA threads previously posted??

[arb culture]

But if the contracts you are hoping to tender for specify a particular system or qualification then you'd be restricting your chances of winning the tender if you don't meet the initial spec.

 

What you say is very true - If a tender or job specifies something, then not having that qualification or training will put you at a disadvantage - even if the system/qualification specified is pseudoscience, and everyone is free to use it with or without training or license anyway...

 

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/images/vacancies/ResearchConsultantpersonspesonfication.pdf

 

A person will not get an honest opinion about certain training providers on a public internet forum because of a long history of certain individuals bullying, badgering, and eventually silencing anyone who disagrees with them.

 

So I would suggest that Dilz (and anyone else considering training) finds actual real-life people who have done various training courses and talk with them about the options available. Training can be expensive and it pays to get it right. I have found that a whole range of very knowledgeable and experienced people are readily approachable at conferences and seminars etc.

 

Good luck with it - whatever you decide to do

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

What you say is very true - If a tender or job specifies something, then not having that qualification or training will put you at a disadvantage - even if the system/qualification specified is pseudoscience, and everyone is free to use it with or without training or license anyway...

 

But, if identified could potentially be in breach of copyright / intellectual property rights? Not sure, but there must be a potential for that??

 

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/images/vacancies/ResearchConsultantpersonspesonfication.pdf

 

Was this the link you meant to post? If so, I'm not sure what it is meant to indicate??

 

A person will not get an honest opinion about certain training providers on a public internet forum because of a long history of certain individuals bullying, badgering, and eventually silencing anyone who disagrees with them.

 

I've no horse in the race, it is just my opinion, for what it's worth, it is honest and freely offered. Is the history of bullying / badgering you refer to from the previous QTRA threads? I remember there were some strongly held for and against opinions of QTRA by some industry heavy weights...

 

So I would suggest that Dilz (and anyone else considering training) finds actual real-life people who have done various training courses and talk with them about the options available. Training can be expensive and it pays to get it right. I have found that a whole range of very knowledgeable and experienced people are readily approachable at conferences and seminars etc. .....and on Arbtalk.....

 

Good luck with it - whatever you decide to do

 

Bit confused but agree with you about the importance of doing the research and making one's own decision. I'd be interested to hear why you're not in favour of the system.

[daltontrees]

I really have problems with the concept of QTRA. My personal opinion of course, but I believe it to be inherently flawed.

 

Its also the only tree assessment system, *that I am aware of*, that had its procedure and use considered in a legal case, and simply, the judge found it wanting as it demands a "fair degree of subjectivity" - and therefore isn't really *objectively* quantified at all.

 

The case was Goode Vs City of Burnside, 2007, if you are interested. To be fair there are some counter comments to the judges summing up from Mike Ellison, on the QTRA website - but if you read all the information carefully, Mike is just protecting his business and the judges views are spot on.

 

To the OP, just to give a different view, you don't need to do any course and can develop your own tree survey method. This will be perfectly defensible in law 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.

 

Or, simply, you may want the security of having done a course and to follow someone else's method? It won't give you any further legal protection, but it may just set your mind at ease if that's what you need. I've not done any formal tree surveying course, but I am told this is a good one. It may help get you these contracts you are looking for?

 

I'm fairly ambivalent about QTRA, and I am currently doing a big big survey contract which I won only because I got QTRA registered to win it. If I hadn't got registered I would have been wasting time bidding.

 

QTRA cients know what they want, and in my experience non-QRTA clients are not so clear on what they want. Horses for courses.

 

But I think it is wrong to see VTA as a substitute for QTRA or TRAQ or any tree risk assessment system. Whether you agree with QTRA or not there is little room left for doubt that the law supports the view that a duty-holders obligation to obviate foreseeable risk is a combination of hazard assessment (VTA does this) and the likelihood of someone or something being there to be harmed or damaged, and the severity of harm or damage that could be caused. VTA on its own cannot possibly address duty of care.

 

Burns v Goodside was an australian planning appeal decision and has no weight in law in the UK. It wasn't even a legal case.

 

If you want to examine the use of a system that has been scrutinised in legal cases, there's the recent Kew case, there's Bowen, there's Mickelwright, there's Aitken, there's even Smith v Gompels and the recent Stagecoach. These to me are more telling of what the courts deem appropriate than any dissection of proprietary systems. What they seem to say again and again is that it's not about trees or even about the likelihood of failure, it's about foreseeable significant harm. I don't think that surveying trees is the answer, I think that that is about a third of the solution, and that assessing risks and taking proportionate precautions is the real agenda.

 

I'd better go now in case the QTRA people think they have bought my soul. QTRA has shortcomings but they are nothing compared to the shorthcomings of mistaking hazard assessment for risk assessment.

 

No offence Mr 10 Bears, my comments are directed at a general audience.