nod

Good morning Silky. Once the information from the workshop has filtered down it would be awesome to begin sharing & discussing with a wider audience. Best wishes Nod

Hey Folks Possibly a little bit short of notice but we'll be running an arborist rope splicing workshop in Buckinghamshire on 15-16th July. The weekend will cover 16 strand & double braid splicing with the added possibility of looking also at single braid slings using tenex type rope. Please check the link below & contact us at [email protected] for location & costs. Regards Robert Knott 'Nod' Treeworker Splicing Workshop 15-16th July 2017 - Treeworker

Please note that UA cents are not imperative initially but long term employment would require these for variety of work & load sharing. Thanks

We are Milton Keynes, Oxford, Aylesbury based tree work contractors. Our work is split fairly equally between utility, commercial & domestic contracts. We are currently running two 3man crews & rotating the work exposure to give an even mix of varied work. The atmosphere is friendly & progressive with a compliment of equipment that covers all situations that our work entails. We are currently looking for staff who are interested in moving their skills & capabilities forward, who have relevant UA certification for immediate start. The position would ideally suit an individual with UA experience who would like to transition into other areas of treework. Please email [email protected] or cal 07971 830331

Thank you all very much for your input. Ben & I have received over 100 completed surveys which will be the starting point for the project & something for us to get our teeth into. We can all become sidetracked with the most simple of things but we hope that we can maintain focus on the aims & objectives of the project & in due course produce a document that is fit for purpose & that addresses most, if not all, of the issues affecting those choosing SRWP as their preferred method of getting to work. There will soon be another survey directed at employers that will be disseminated through the AA & aimed at approved contractors. Many thanks up until now Nod

Hey Tommy It was probably a red herring but it might fit something at some time!

Hey Ian All these words may be just symantics but it's also important that when a subject is discussed there is clarity for everyone. We then know we're closer to being on the same page & misinterpretation is eliminated. So DRT, DdRT, SRT, SRWP, TRT, TtRT if we are all clear on what these mean then we ARE all on the same page:-) I didn't take your comment negatively, just needing clarity:thumbup:

Our industry has always climbed on a single rope, at least since the 50's in the UK, & I'm thinking that it's high time that we took arbwork in hand for what it is. In most, if not all, instances it is not comparable with other work at height industries where rope & harness are employed apart from the fact that we're above ground & use similar equipment/tools to carry out our work, that's about where the similarities end. Maybe this will be the catalyst that's been long needed?

Good Afternoon Folks Within the UK we have a legislative framework through which all arboricultural operations should be carried out. Now we all know someone/company who does follow this closely or even at all, but that's a whole other bag from this matter. From the Guide to Good Climbing Practise, AFAG/FISA guides, LOLER, PUWER, Work at Height Regs, ICOP, EN stanards, CE certification etc & any other documents not listed, from which we are able to take direction & guidance on how we go about our business. In recent years techniques & equipment have developed at a rate where this framework has not kept up to speed with & to this end Ben Rose & myself chose to try & take the matter in hand & do the necessary research that will bring the different single rope working methods up to date within that framework. I will post below the aims & objectives of the research & hopefully this will aid to keep the discussion on track as I'm sure you can appreciate that this is not a 5minute job & we will do our best to respond & maintain dialogue that's on track with those objectives. Many thanks Rob Knott 'Noddy' Stationary Rope Technique (SRT) Work Positioning – A UK Perspective Project/Research aim: To appraise Stationary Rope Work Positioning (SRWP) techniques and equipment commonly used within the United Kingdom arboricultural industry, and their relationship and relevance to legislation, good practice and EU equipment test standards. Objectives: 1. To research the equipment currently being used by SRWP climbers and how it is applied in the work-place; 2. To analyse the relationship of the tools and techniques used against the UK framework of legislation and good practice 3. To gain understanding of the forces experienced in both SRWP practices and those equipment may be subject to; 4. To compare the forces equipment is subject to against commonly accepted EU PPE test standards; 5. To assess whether equipment application matches the currently accepted test criteria and manufacturers recommendations for use.

Hey Ian Just wondering what it is you feel that people are trying to change? Thanks Nod

Rearranged splicing weekend in north Buckinghamshire. Splicing Workshop ***NEW DATE 9th & 10th July*** - Treeworker Thanks Steve

Hey Steve I probably wouldnt pay anything for them for at least a year to be sure they survive. This would really be the worst time to have lited them, with their roots active & in soft full foliage. Double the size of the pots if you want a chance to help them make it through.

So we have a product directives, i.e. machinery directive, PPE directive etc & new products must satify the relevant directive? We can then use an EN standard as guidance on satifying the above, or we can devise a test protocol outside of an EN so long as it satisfies the above directive. Submit the product for testing at a notified body (under PPE or Machinery directive +unknown others) to ensure it satisfies said directive. Notified body issues a Declaration of Conformity that product satisfies appropriate directive. Product is ce marked showing that it conforms & can now be sold across Europe. Is that kind of how it goes? But it has little to do with our accepted test methods & the products relative application, we are jumping through in the belief that they are relevant & in many cases I don't believe they are. Or are we discussing completely different things? Regards Nod

Within treework in the UK, before CE, nobody could have given a monkeys about standards & there was even less enforcement then than there is now. If you wanted kit you went to the store & bought what was there; if it wasn't there you made do with summut else :-)

A wee bit behind the trail here but going back to the original queries. LOLER is an inspection of whether the kit is Fit For Purpose; if we are selecting PASS or FAIL based on an etching or paper slip with CE on it then we fail in that self-appointed role & as inspector am no longer fit for purpose. The point here is that no equipment requires a LOLER examination until it’s six months old from its in use date, at this point we are assessing its condition & whether its application is fit for purpose. Whether or not it has CE paperwork is now irrelevant; for sure it may offer some thought & direction to the inspector but that’s probably about it. CE is nothing more than a trade agreement where equipment is tested to a predetermined set of EN standards which then enables sales throughout the EEC. Before that we had British Standards on such products or DIN in Germany. As outlined above, EN is the standard; CE is the certification that allows that product to be sold throughout the EEC. It is high time that our industry took this onerous heap of crap by the horns. We are now almost 2 decades into a series of decisions that have impacted on our industry; decisions that were imposed without any dialogue with treework trade bodies or individuals. And consequently we now accept these standards as being relevant & without delving deep into the subject, I mean boringly deep then it's impossible to see the bottom of that pile. In the UK I’d be surprised if there were even a dozen individuals that have done this. If you're not one of those then I’d be fairly confident your opinion is largely or partially based on hearsay. Not the wisest stand point. This is directed at the EN standards that we’re regulated by. Since the late 1990s there have only been minor changes to some of the testing protocol but in essence, my belief is that, our equipment & the testing that they undergo should be led by the application of the product. To my knowledge there has been no updating based on the massive changes that have taken place within the range of equipment that is now available to us. And then there’s the manufacturers standard; but I’m not even going there! So, it's okay to use a loop sling CE certified & tested to EN566 or EN564 as a rope on rope friction management tool when the test standard has approved it as eye to eye or loop sling for lifting?? The relevance & how connected, or otherwise, these standards are can be seen here: Eye 2 eye slings 8mm EN795 – 10kN Prussick loop slings En566 - 22kN Carabiner EN362 - 20kN Climbing rope EN1891 - 15kN Three different break strengths!?; EN566 is a loop sling standard for lifting & not tested for its abrasion resistance or rope grabbing capacity; EN795 is a standard for mobile anchor devices, the same as a cambium saver, not tested for its abrasion resistance or rope grabbing capacity. In my eyes we are completely at sea with this whole area & manufacturer’s dive willing through the hoops that are already in place (EN standards) & oftentimes have no relevance to the manner in which they are. The whole exercise begins to become pointless without a focussed look at how our equipment is used. Hopefully this explains the joined up writing that prompted the less than joined up outburst of a few days ago & I’ll get around to replying to a few of the responses it elicited. Thanks.