Bundle 2

Not tried them ...no. Its on my list of things to do tho'. TBH, it does not seem from viewing the blurb and pics from Petzl that anything substantial has been changed or reworked....Sure they look natty enough. However they warn of the same pitfalls when operating them as before. Agreed they offer specific methods of backing up in pdf format, very useful. They have changed the name to attract treeworkers .(presumably ) For me the issue is gettin' a hands on assessment...if they have not improved the accuracy of manufacturing tolerances I will not be replacing like for like anytime soon!

" Do you need to do refreshers or can you just do CS Units in chainsaw use that you do not already have? " As I understand it , assessment for cs units not already held by the candidate are considered valid refresher training...( I am assuming that passing said units is a requirement .....perhaps someone in NPTC employ could can confirm this ) This makes good sense to me.

" If you aint refreshed you aint legal? " Mmmm...does that go for the pre 1997 (?)units also...? Some worthwhile changes made imo....especially cs 38/39 whu... lends it considerably more credence....in particular RA (5 steps ) tpo offence etc....Why did they remove advantages of workshop maintenence from 30?....should prob read in detail...!

Not signed up for the course but did attend same just b4 crimbo......got me back into the tree science side of life with illustrated presentations re wood anatomy, physiology and such and the pdf.....It seems to be common practice that these workshops consist of a mix and match of the the most relevant or tried and tested elements from several sources...this course is no exception. Enjoy!

"then fence the area off "...cos..."goats. Eat anything, bulletproof. " !

I'm running a course on Monday, Cambridgeshire that addresses these kinds of issues, Cheshire Woodlands, Julian Forbes Laird, Rodney Heliwell, Andrew Cowan all attending. would be able to fit you in if you wanted to come, might save you a great deal of time and effort. Looking forward to it.......!

Reading the link Ben put me in mind of this....I am not commenting on the proposal per se however more the facts as they are presented.....Numbers can be manipulated or presented to some extent to prove a point....I thought the perspective herein of some merit...see what you think. http://www.tree-care.info/cms/index.php?module=weblogmodule&action=view&id=3&src=%40random4637b50063771

Not much......I just bin slapped with a parking fine and a speeding ticket...total £95-00 and 3 points...just off to the nick to pay my dues...!!!

I am saying that a LOLER inspector cannot inspect the splice without an understanding of its anatomy- and to do so without said insight is to potentially shoot himself in the foot( hence we see inspectors dismissing splices outright as a result of the the difficulties stemming from the splice's origin.)....an aspect that NPTC is not willing to engage with illustrated by its refusal to create a unit applicable to splicing....... This only serves to undermine what standing NPTC has as the foremost representative body for training in our industry Tim...imo. Logically, NPTC will have to apply themselves to this issue at some level in the future....if only to continue to validate LOLER inspectors with an appropriate level of understanding to both do their job and perpetuate some degree of respect for LOLER inspections within the industry. I am not trying to threaten in any way but I believe it is a missed opportunity to improve industry standards and practice...again...imo.

<1/100-1/100 ( no partial failure considered so value <1 is not valid...revised @ 1/100 ....)

" (there's a chicken and egg issue there!) " So it seems NPTC are able and willing to designate units to apply competence to LOLER inspectors wothout splicing being an issue ( ie they are not trained or assessed in this regard re arb )...as they are not willing to offer units for splicing competence....there would seem to be an anomaly hereabouts....?

http://www.hortweek.com/news/bulletin/ArboricultureBulletin/article/881897/?DCMP=EMC-ArboricultureNews

e-mail sent......

I'll QTRA them for you....

1 Oyster fungus 2 Jews ear 3 Velvet shank

" What do you think cousins? " Quite apart from any debate about the invasive nature of cable bracing, it is simply such a faff compared to the systems developed by Wessoly et al..... Here in the U.K. our British Standard ( BS 3998 ) Recommendations for treework still only has scope enough to consider the cable bracing techniques. We continue to anticipate an updated document........ In the meantime then, I would expect that there are more than a handful of technicians for whom your "tool" may have some appeal.

Mate, we've had this discussion B4...... http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3860&page=3 Note Chris Cowells comment re the catalogue.....? " Kong Twin Use Don't want to cause a stir here, but when the Kong Twin was released, their Climbing product catalogue stated 'Specially studied for tree care......' and 'Twin ascender - how to climb with a footlock technic' i.e. it was specified for tree care from day one. For info, there is another double ascender hitting the market very soon.....which is considerably easier to back-up than the Kongs. Chris "

" Anyone else heard this - or know if it is true!? " Rules of thumb huh....! Its always the exception that proves the rule....! I also heard A.Summers from Treelife pretty much say he thought Ted Greens notion of applanatum appearing only saprophytically was not supportable...I guess there is some disagreement...but correct id IS important for sure!

Forestry Commission Bulletin 101- De-Icing Salt Damage to Trees & Shrubs http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/publications.nsf/searchpub/?SearchView&Query=FIELD+CategoryInp+CONTAINS+*Bulletin*+AND+(salt+and+trees)&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0&SearchWV=TRUE&SearchThesaurus=TRUE

I wondered when someone would get there Tony....! It can be misleading as the wood from trees of both conifer and broadleaves will look the same in cross section as the "type" of wood put down by the tree is modified . Trees can alter the wood ( broadleaves ) usually by the structure and lignin/microfibril matrix & pectin I think, to be up to 4 x stronger when needed!! The anatomy of conifer wood is significantly different from that of broadleaves....

I have been reading this article recently ...thought it was an interesting aspect of tpo law, such as it is......Highlights some of the conflicting issues. http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2009/msg00403

You asked the question John....at the risk of teaching you to suck eggs, I replied as it contains info re: Inonotus dryadeus If you know it all, dont ask. You cannot expect people to not be interested and inquire for more info...esp as you play some foolish game of hiding info/ not posting facts etc....rendering your initial question unanswerable without further detail. Perhaps you need to think about that and not be so defensive all the time... Finally, as I considered my last post, I submitted the dialogue for preview only to be posted up....tough, get over it frankly. I am not having a go at you . I was as polite as necessary eg " if its not too cheeky " etc.....There was nothing that i wished to say by some veiled hidden agenda either......perhaps they are right!!

Particularly page 134.....U John

In that case...let me refer you to the works of engels & schwarze..." Fungal strategies of Wood Deacay in Trees " pgs 131-134....?

" did a root excavation and found the fungi had rotted the underside of root and heart of tree,but top side of roots was growing well and had put good growth on " Interesting to hear it rot the heart of the tree as dyadeus is not known affect wood to any real degree above ground level... This is the exact reason for my query as to the appearance of the roots .....The incremental response of growth will determine physical appearance which in turn can be used with information about the position of fruiting bodies and mycelial presence to ascertain the relevant progress of pathogen.....( engels & schwarze ) I say this a bit tongue in cheek as an accurate prognosis as to rate of development is dependent on so many things as to be a minefield of conjecture...imo!! edit.... " Just to clarify…." Ahhh...I see. Thank you!!