Arbocop

with regard to who the NOS are. it is the National Ocupational Standard, administered by Lantra sector skills council, NOT Lantra-Awards two seperate bodies befor them over 10 years ago SSC were called NTO national training organisations, Fastco represented forestry and arb, largly but not fully when the NTO became SSC they lost nearly 2/3 of the nto and grouped them together. the nos is if you like a set of job descriptions, and performance criteriia that those job descriptions should be able to do, its a lot moor wordy than that, is a requirment of government, and any qualification that whants to be acredited must be based on the NOS does that help?? kev

funny thing is it not questions about tpos etc and tree species exist already, and you shouls have been questioned on them in tests already, i know cern was, how are you cern cool i hope

hi guys and gals warning broad band mucking arround so might loose some of the post i have a bit of a rep for long answers, so bear with me. so first lets confess ohh no im an npyc assessor, a lantra trainer, a qualified teacher who assists the SJA with first aid provsions in training, so does that mean im the devil, well to some may be. lets get a couple of things in perspective, the N.O.S is not perfect, it is a requirment of govenment, and is written in teaching speak, our nos has been under reviw for a couple of years seriously but before that for about 5 years the TTWG were looking at it. why is it important well what it does is set out a range of skills that differant qualifications need to meet, the higher the qualification the moor skills the moor evidence, so all you that have ever done an nptc or ND C&G in the last 10 tears or so would have been affected by them. the new proposed nos ties in to job specifications that spell out more what one migh expect of a ground worker in utility or aminity work, forman etc. they are long complex and painful, but with the way education is set up these days are a necessary thing, one that FASTCo used to do under a differant title. so over 10 years have passed govenment required the NOs be redone, witch is happening, it was advertiesed in hor week, the aa news letter, isa uk mag lots of places, but whent largly unnoticed another thing that caused problems, but still got some feed back and of the people giving feed back you have everything from a small 2 man company through to a multinational and education training and assessment bodies as well as a few groups from arb, silver. for. and boy are they heavy going meetings. noew the current NOs is nearing completion its not perfect nether are the job profiles, but a lot of work is going in to this one and looking to the future nos for this and other industries so to the link with nptc................ in about 1996/7 NPTC changed there systems for assessmnt seperate train and assess, yep 12 or so years ago in line with the change to the NOS NTO/SSC changes. there was an over lap period, there was a major change to paperwork and other systems, but still from an assessors point of veiw it was not sorted till about 2000 9 years ago now, but for candidates the change was 12+ years. they alloed overlap and acredition for nearly 10 years, so if you had old certs you could claim new ones where they matched or only had to do unit tests in the bits were you had not previously been assessed to claim the whole cert. thats 10 years twice the recomended update time for HSE. not unresnoble. so about 2 years ago now may be a little longer NPTC announced in all the placed you may expect to see it they were being promted to review there certs, to make sure they match the NOS and still work for the whole trees and timber group. there have been many discussions not least of all if NPTC certs should expire, UA certs do and have also had a new reassessmnet process introduced. all the otheres no, not this time, for those who fed back in they felt that the current system of updating was ok, not perfect but served well. so faced with a change nptc have done a few consultations, and this one has difefrant stuff in it compared with previouse ones, and i think is good in many placed but not perfect for those that missed it you can find it here http://www.nptc.org.uk/latest-news/detail.asp?dsid=347 the content i think is best placed in the other thread, but in answer to the orriginal issues of this tread i think that there is a llittle knee jerk hear, when we look at how nptc introduced these things historically they have been consistent and understanding, not perfect but who hear is , not me i know. they have given good APL and resnoble roughts to acredit and carry things over. as for updates it is a recomendation, there are many ways to address this issue and talking it through with informed people will give a good out come, like wisw robot like you must do this cource blahh blahh sers the candidate/trainer/asseesor no or little benifit. hope the history lesson helped i think the next post ill try and keep shorter

Linda these leafletts would support ACOPS in there status it you dont have to do them if you can proove you are doing it a better way a simple example of this may be a thing such as the 12492 helmet, if vyou use one with greater protectiob thats fine but not lesser does that help

your welcome guys at the end of the day the thing in the primary regs that all forget is 'so far as resnobule practicable' and the hse do always measure 'over and ubove' i can quote stuff till im blue in the face but at the end of the day its all about going home safe.

pete its not just in the books its in the standards, the gudance the regs the acts the eu directives its a blooming nightmare, i train loler cources and we only ever touch on all this , im trying to sort it out for our retail side but you fall under differant regs for retail and use and well itss all very very complex and i spend my days asking, especially when you start getting in to the directives. at the end of the day buy good gear from known place keep records avoid cheap internet deals kev

ohh this is a real tricky one and its getting late so i may do it in a few posts and try to be as acurate as possible lets start with certs of conformity, this is truly a document created between the manfacturer and the notifying body ( the guys that do the CE marking) it sometimes relates to a EN number or some times a EU directive and confims conformity with that thing. as a consumer we had very little right to a cert of conformity that is untill 2002 when ppe regs that relate to manufacturing spelt out that a ce mark placed on an item of ppe indicates conformity to the EC directive and specific requirments there under........ so thats fine is it not????? alas no loler says 'if no cert of confmity then new kit must be insected befor firt use' so if we take this to the enth degree the ce mark that must be on ppe is not a cert so gear must be cheaked. i have a personal opinion about this but thats for another time i think.. so what is the issue with a cert of conformity, the main issue is that the certificate is truly issued from the notifying body to to company wishing ce aprovel, and we the consumer have no strict right to get it. if we whant to get really anal about this those packing notes invoices etc that say cert of conformity strictly are not.... but for many satisfy the criteria, we even produce something similar through our outlets. we could argue that the paperwork produce is notice of conformity, and thats fine by me. i think in all of this what we need to do is be sensible, of far moor use than the cert of conformity is user instructions and care information, these really are vital, and many manufacturers are now putting conformity declarations in there instructions, in line with best practice for ppe, some are not and some times the paperwork just gets plain lost as some suppiers send it seperate to there gear. but ask as well if you are buying gear form sme one they should be able to answer your questions, and help steer you, produce you some sort of notice and also user instructions. and give you good advice about what works well with what. and finaly ive found many whole salers and manufacturers very very willing to help and fax stuff over or e mail infor to you if you ask. does that help or just make things really muddy cheers all kev

So does any one else whant any LOLER facts??? if nt prehaps this thread is dead???? And thanks arb lord 5 years, cool i was just interested. cheers all and in case any one was interested i will be running a loler corce in leeds 16-18 june and a similar time in the ipswich area, fancy trying it PM me tata kev

Arb lord how long have you been climbing???

billy well done you, all to oftern we have a rant on hear and when re read it is a bit harsh but never say sorry, i take my hat of to u kev

what o folks well the work at height regs agree with the above but completly in reverse hehehehehehehhe....., in other words rope access is at the bottom ofthe pile of choises, and the get out clause is not what the regs require, what they require is that you justify everything from NOT WORKING AT HEIT working down the list to ROPE ACCESS. so what possible justifications could there be not to eliminate work at height???? well my pole saw is not long enough... ever tryed thinning a tree with a pole saw, a little over kill to fell a tree just to get the dead wood out etc so why not use permanant platforms and custome access roughts .... yeh right time to do the steel framing round all those street trees hehehe i think not. so ok, access platforms, scaffhold, mewp, henchemns youngmans etc, items with integra safty features such as kick boards over load devives knee and hip rails etc..... well to be honest it is really quite hard to justfy clambering arround in a lot of hedges when you can get access to many wonderful scafolds etc to do that job, and the sam with mewps, but... poor access, slping ground soft soft ground underground utilities, cellars, cavaties etc, traffic risk to legs, cost, unable to perform task, i really think compation on veterain trees is pushing it a bit and the risk of striking the platform would be largly negeated with the correct specing of the platform, and then rope access, well ask your self is there a net gain in saftey when all else is stripped away would it have been safer to do it another way, the classic example being a live tree good climbing plenty of oppotunity to establish 2 anchors that wont be overly cumbersom, go back to the same tree 3 years later stone dead and rotten well first you may be able to justify, but what about the second for rope access and dont forget obligations to limit affects and exposures food for thought kev

hi guys and gals i hope i can spead a little light on this issue hear is a link to the hse web site http://www.hse.gov.uk/falls/harness.htm now the issue hear is that a number of medical teams in hospitals mountin rescue etc are convinced that the affects of harness suspension trauma are resposnible for 200+ deaths in the last few years rather than other injuries, the hse have to look at a broad picture and while they recognise the condition exists they use a genneral approach. the sines of HST are similar to shock with pins and needesl etc and are more common in people with a dorsal attachment hanning MOTIONLESS upright, so the 1st have a rescuplan, a decent one and kit and practise it to ensure help and rescue happens quick and safe, i think your mesure should be if an accident happens can i get them down in 15 mins or less 2 thing is our stile of harness are not the worst, if you invert you wont suffer HST but a lot of other things instead..... 3if the casulty can move get them to wiggle flex legs rest on a branch semi recumbrant is a good poition to sit casultie in but managing an air way in that position takes practise and is vital help is on the way. the reson for hse gudance is if you are not practised in the above then in genneral terms recov positon gives best chance to maintain an effective airway, witch is the thing most likly to kill you. the work at heigh regs say you should have fa training if you work at height that includes HST eliment so make sure it does, our courses do. and of cource, train properly, do a proper risk assessment plan the job, put your best people on the job, ignore the voice in your head saying that will be allright, or ill only just........ and avoid the accident in the first place cheers kev ps on the ambulance sid eof things this is still an issue that some trusts and services have not embraceed, arr the NHS post code lottery kev

IMHO what makes bad practice in this case is not know ing the risk exists, in the same way there are somme very significant risks assosiated with choakering arround stemms, small stems, long krab, wide gate is a recipy for disaster, but as already said an excellent way of controlling a hazard when it exists. i had to investigate an accident were a guy came very close to leaving the gene pool and all thatsaved him was his choise of side strop and the afct that it failed at a relitivly low load. in this matter though he was young, inexperianced, in an ash tree in spring, on pecie work, taking out a 30 foot+ section with a high load winch pulling it and a standard cut working with a guy how he did not usually work with. now look at the chain of events and think was there a risk there ........ as for the afag guide picture, remeber these things are used to set out a basic minimum standard and methods as mentioned above build on those PS HI NODD hope all is well with you, i think you know my feelings about splicing and how to take it forward. chat soon kev

Hi folks as a group of companies we own a retail out let trees unlimited in leeds and suffolk, and can only repeat what jones and others have said, just like any company there are overheads and in the same way as a tree company may have to swallow some costs eg if a fence panel gets broken there may be costs we swallo, like a karabeaner with a sluggish gate action the manufacturer says passes there test but we swop as really not good for tree wor, so there are costs born in similar ways but from a differant source. just like jones trees unlimited are tied in to whole salers for may items and it is a fact that in poor exchange rate times that has a negative affect on price discounts but in the good times commands very good discount to the retailer, alas all sufefring on the retail side at the moment. Jones trees unlimited stanton hope, buxtons etc all have other issues like soem suppliers will not allow us to sell on the internet some of there items and insist that they go through a dealer network were customer recives certain info etc, so as much as we would love to get direct delivery out dealerships are at risk if we do. as for buying from the states, well those dealers should not be doing it it is aganst there dealership and also it is an offence to purchase and use for work in this country no ce marked items such as chainsaw harnesses etc, and honestly us saws are difefrant to uk saws in many ways, you als o get no warenty support in the uk. now i dont whant to get in to the great uk we are taxed etc etc etc debate as we all know that there are many good things about living hear or we wopuld all emigrate, but to answer the question are we getting ripped off...... nope we are a hig tax nation with a welfair state to support and for that we all pay one way or another................would we like the gear to be cheaper yes, as with jones and the whole salers that supply us when trees unlimited gets a price reduction we pass it on. as a ps ive found it very interesting now working for a company with a retail side and actually seeing how that side of things works and am supprised just how small margins are compared with other retail markets like cloths. cheers all kevin

Chapter 8 refers to chapter 8 of the highways manuel, a very very very thick document, there are all sorts of regs, and rules to do with working on the road new road street works act, street works act, street works supervisors regs tonnesssssssss to meet these rules depending on what exactly it is you do you will ether have to qualify under the units 1 to 15 i think that cover things like putting out signes supervising avoiding cabels in fill etc a lot of tree guys do unit 7 signing lighting and gaurding but the regs say that a unit 10 supervisor should have ownership of tha tjob, to complicate things a little further tree work does not strickly fall under street works and may also sit under a differant scheme that has differant numbers and a differeant sector skills council, dont have ref to hand but if you like i can look it up kev

consider the tort of negligence consider i think part 3 hswa 74 non employed reponcible for your acts or ommisions poll v batholmue in terms of skill and instruction possibly trade descriptions if you do work you are not trained to do at a slant possible tresspass??? or even looses incured via TCPA non valid tpo??? does that litte lot help???

just remember justified in risk assessment what gloves to wear not you dont have to have them kev

nope you have the older one the 12mm has been removed so just must 10mm

no worries mate in the 5 years post loler accidents due to equip failure fell from over 30% to less than 5% cant lay my hands on exact figurs at the mo

kev is arbocop arbocop is kev kevin moore essex suffolk and beyond ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hello gang just a little suprise for you all the new afag 401 is hot off the press now see http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/afag401.pdf have a read this is the information hse /eho's will use to scrutinise you and there are some important changes, not least the use of the word must!!!! time you climbers bought some new lids new standard is in and look atthose rope diamiters to mention just a few happy reading

it is always tricky to second geuss peoples decisions and people always do things for a reasin in this case it may be an over zelous aplication of the OLD best practice guide AFAG 401 that said USUALLY 12mm diamiter but note hot off the press new afag have a look at my seperate post. people do seem to look at workd like normally or resnoble and read the word must, and the new afag uses the word must cheers all

there you go loler according to kev, bit sad really ask another

wow dean a little forceful yes loler is a legal requirment you must conform with yes you need chapter 8/highway working award no it does not have to be written but a system to prove it must exist vibration is a real issue causing long term problems, creative and targeted managment of the issue does minimise 'paperwork' but there wil always be the need for soem proof. employees taking responcibilities acts/ommisions is a duty under the HSAWA lots of people forget that, but the culture of self care does need a managment input there does that answer your question, and well done for encoraging your staff to take responcibility for there duties, your turn kev