Mesterh
-
Posts
14,295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by Mesterh
-
Probably not touching a tree with any kind of saw tbh.
-
Does it feel like it has good compression?
-
Thats what we need, some black and white info.
-
Nope, turnover down and profits down:thumbdown: Oh and expenses more or less the same.
-
Looks like it does a good job but I wouldnt want to be standing there when a big bit of beech goes BANG! Either no jacobs or no teeth!
-
That musta been some accident to be worth £350K!
-
Love it. When speaking to arb consultants over the years they recon theres no way they would state that removing a tree would not cause heave. There are too many variables plus I dont think there PI insurance would be too happy with a statement along those lines either. I was always told its best to just remove the tree and deal with any heave afterwards once its all settled down. Hope you dont mind me asking in this thread but anyone any ideas on if your/our PL insurance would pay out if we removed a tree which then did cause heave? Would it be my insurance or that of the house holder?
-
All brash and timber removed. Everyone seems to understand what that means, well had nobody quiz it yet. I wouldnt say all waste incase someone wants to be funny about a couple of leaves or worse some sawdust in the flower beds. Not that we leave loads etc but you cant always get every last bit cleaned up. Never had any complaints about cleaning up and its usually the only thing they comment on." Ohh youve done a good job at tidying up" Hmmm didnt you see us remove 10 ton of pop from your tiny garden with access an umpa lumpa would struggle with. IIRC in the old college days they recommend putting "All arisings to be removed" I still dont have a clue what arisings are!
-
Yes if they have a good employer, but then that would be done LOLER or not. A bad employer wont know what LOLER is let alone adhere to it. And since no one is interested until theres an accident its a waste of time IMO.
-
Yeah the bit about coppers being the only ones to legally stop traffic is true IIRC. We just usually wait for gaps in traffic then stop any cars if we have to. If I used lights on every job where we drop stuff out into the road I'd win none of them tbh.
-
Hmmm yeah I'm not sure it is true tbh. I mean come on if insurance companies really didnt want to pay out if they dig deep enough they could get out of everything! OR have enough clauses to not tie them in to anything. Surely they are there for when someone is negligent/human error, mistake which apparently is 98% of all insurance claims.
-
:lol: CLASS!!!
-
It will no matter what you do tbh. You wont do a bit of training then jump in as a top climber. Doing apprenticeships is a very good way to get a taster of what its all about IMO. It would be my recommendation to do this first then go on a course or whatever afterwards.
-
I have a great one but its locked up in a tender doc atm. I'll try and remove it, if you havent got one by then I'll post it up.
-
Suppuse it depends if Arbtex is designed to stop pathogens/fungi getting in to the wood or whether it soaks into the wood to preserve it. Sounds stupid but I wonder if a type of creosote/wood preserver would do any damage to the tree. It would surely help with preserving the wood. IIRC I think someone told me that years ago over in Germany they used to treat damaged tree trunks(car damage etc) with some type of creosote and/or varnish.
-
Pro=we could charge for the service. Con=Isnt it a bit of a nasty dirty job? Sry no pro's or con's for the tree, well non that I know about.
-
Possibly but not definitely. I only say this because in the past there have been loads of debates around the old complying with the insurance or them not paying out scenario, for stuff like the above and/or not having up to date NPTC's or not having them in the first place etc etc. From what I gather no one has ever been refused a pay out by the insurance companies for not complying. Unfortunately no insurance companies have ever taken an interest in the threads/posts to clarify there stance on the matter. Its obviously best to have the LOLER checks and in date tickets and use the right PPE and adhere to best practice HSE guidlines etc but since none of us probably do everything all the time its a good job that they dont not pay out:confused1:
-
Take a photo and post it up.
-
£200!! You sure theres that much difference? 200T is around the £450 and 338 £400 IIRC.
-
Is that a fact?
-
This should also help. [ATTACH]32275[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]32276[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]32277[/ATTACH]
-
Good, none of the new old skool fandangled cowboy rip cuts:thumbup1: Its all NTP from now on:thumbup: Oh and where did I put that fungicide?
-
Looks like a 2-1 to me tbh. Just like a waggoners/truckers hitch which gives a 2-1 ratio.
-
Anti kickback chains, legal requirment?
Mesterh replied to Tony Croft aka hamadryad's topic in General chat
Lol yeah no worries I know you didnt mean that just came a cross that way. I've been using the oregon chain for the 020's since the stihl stuff was fairly poor, not sure if its improved or not lately. While it may not be 'illegal' if it is recommended by the HSE etc then although not compulsory I would think that if someone has an accident due to kick back and wasnt using an anti kick back chain then they probably arent conforming to best practice a which may have consequences. I only assume this as it could be seen as the same as wearing type C pants when climbing and all the other 'recommended good practice' guidelines etc. Theres a huge difference between a legal requirement and a recommended guideline. I think there are only a few legal requirements with chainsaws being the safety stickers and on/off switch mainly.(dont quote me on that though ) -
The stretch air do look good but I just cant bare to bring myself to spend over £200 on a pair of chainsaw pants! The sip progress look quite good and a bit more reasonable at £160:001_smile:
