The law for tree work?First Aid course 1 day course or 3 day course

[treesnakey]

We on a commercial site to day 3 out 5 of the gang had a 1 day first course.

A health and safety consultant turned up and said this was not sufficient and that we had to have the 3 day course.

Only because there was other 3 day qualified people on site, did he let the job proceed.

 

I've had a look on hse and can't see anything that states tree work you need the 3 day course.

 

Advise please??

[treequip]

In short, for that site, whatever the consultant says goes

 

The "law" says nothing. The HSE recommendation says the training should be appropriate

[treesnakey]

so is the 3 day appropriate for tree work?

[Mr MEng]

As long as one member of your team has done the 3 day course, i would have thought that would cover it for working on such sites.

 

 

 

Willie

[treequip]

so is the 3 day appropriate for tree work?

 

 

In a nutshell yes, the First aid at work (FAW) training is the "good as it gets" industry standard for general first aid. It certainly covers your legal responsibility and gets that PITA H&S consultant off your back, unless they want you to find a training provider offering the "FAW+F" option

 

The +F is forestry and the course should be tailored to cover the sort of scenarios that someone in a high risk industry might face. That would be the top standard.

[treequip]

As long as one member of your team has done the 3 day course, i would have thought that would cover it for working on such sites.

 

 

 

Willie

 

The problem with that viewed from the H&S audit (Which is where this thread started) is, what if that person is unavailable? They might be temporarily unavailable, elsewhere on site, tipping off etc.

[felixthelogchopper]

The problem with that viewed from the H&S audit (Which is where this thread started) is, what if that person is unavailable? They might be temporarily unavailable, elsewhere on site, tipping off etc.

 

Or inconveniently being the person who has been injured.

[treequip]

Or inconveniently being the person who has been injured.

 

Would that not be covered under unavailable