monkeybusiness

No

It might be worth a chat with NPORS - they seem like a pretty forward- thinking training organisation (they offer a tilty qualification now). I’d imagine there might be a way for you to possibly monetise your idea if it is something that they could incorporate into a training course/qualification.

Planning permission for a pond - what a ridiculous country we live in!!!

Not worth financing a new Bobcat E10? 0% over 5 years, cost you about 35p per week!...

At some point there is a risk of a cut and hold shear operator grabbing too big a piece and pulling the machine over on a site where it would (rightly) be reported, or where the consequences lead to injury or worse on a site where it may otherwise not be reported for whatever reason... At that point I’d imagine the powers-that-be may determine a cut and hold shear actually is a lifting appliance, and everything will become a lot more complicated (calculating potential applied load with a safety factor may lead to insistence on hugely oversized carrier machines - the weight of the shear itself is only a small part of the ‘lift plan’). A recognised industry-accepted competency needs to become a reality before insurmountable red tape is forced upon us!

I wonder who came up with the course content? It’d be very interesting to hear your thoughts on what is delivered Eddie, as you obviously have a good deal of experience in using tree shears on sites that already require a lot of ‘hoop-jumping!’. If nothing else it is an extra piece of paper to stick in front of a difficult site manager to show competence - it would be good to know whether the course is actually fit for purpose in the real world (and not just a training-provider exploiting a gap in the market).

They’ll soon change it if you keep accidentally snapping it whilst accessing your property.

Google Thomas Higgins - they’ll get your money if you present an invoice and the cuntstomer doesn’t pay it.

Your original question asked what someone being paid £100/day on the books actually costs a business per day. I answered your question, but (still) don’t understand your follow up.

As I said, £150 plus per day real costs for someone paid £100 per day on the books.

?

£150 plus

Bloody expensive and won’t wear well with the odd battle scars - will look shit (and become worthless) very quickly if worked IMO. Land Rover are simply a very good marketing company flogging a variety of size/shaped luxurious but completely unnecessary cars to an increasingly wealthy customer base - the only thing in their current range that interests me now is the full fat Range Rover (which I would definitely buy if I was rich enough, but I’m not!). They cleverly pitch their image around their roughty-toughty go anywhere/do anything heritage which is bizarrely aspirational to those who have no need for such vehicles. They make a lot more money selling 2-3 tonnes of metal and components at the top end of the market than at the lower priced end and who can blame them? Work vehicles aren’t on their radar anymore I don’t think.

You’ve done a mint job, nice one!

There’s a reason for that!...

Navara, no question.

GH is better made/stronger than the GX, yes. Not relevant to your digger, but a 1928 safetrak fits into a GH94 as though it was made specifically for the task - the bucket rest is the perfect height to park the chipper against and feed whilst on the trailer.

The GH is all welded construction, and is arguably a stronger/better trailer. I bought a Brian James Diggerplant to move 2 tonne chippers (it is a 3.5 tonne trailer, so running well within capacity) and it keeps cracking across the bed (which 4 Ifor GH 2.7 tonne trailers have never done carrying the same weight). The Brian James aren’t as strong as the Ifor trailers in my experience, and you’ll be running at capacity with that digger. Get the 185 heavy duty tyres too (they have a type of all-terrain tread pattern) - they are much much harder wearing than the low profile tyres fitted to a lot of plant trailers.

No probs, I’ll wind my neck in. It would appear climbing must have been the only option.

Apologies. From the pic it looks like 3 easy fells - might be a bit overwhelming if you’ve not felled bigger sticks before I suppose.

From the pic that’s a poor example - there doesn’t appear to be any reason to climb at that stage when the working at height hierarchy is considered.

This - in spades!

I can’t help but think that the prevalence of utility lads on certain contracts falling out of trees (National Grid contract has a spate of incidents at one point from memory) and the subsequent early insistence of 2 line working within sectors of that industry, which sadly now appears to be being forced upon the wider industry by those with our apparent best interests at heart, stems from a few factors - Possible unskilled workers (I think it is more likely to be complacency/rushing/trying to hit targets/cutting corners from skilled workers but that will usually register as lack of skill) not adhering to current best practice/not clipping in properly etc (maybe free-climbing and covering up the reality after the event...). The aforementioned targets driven by price in the rush-to-the-bottom industry structure forcing unattainable productivity demands leading to corners being cut by some subbies (actual tree cutting firms/lads as opposed to the management-firm contract holders in the middle who constantly drive rates down). Repeated ‘tickling’ of trees instead of removal/replanting, which leads to regular epicormic anchor-points and their associated issues. Trees aren’t removed as there is no incentive (for the incumbent contractor) to provide a long-term clearance as the nature of the DNO contracts is very short term, price driven and liable to change (firms win the work as cheaply as possible, appear to do as little as possible, and the unaddressed issues get passed on to the cheapest firm next time around who carry on doing as little as they can get away with etc). This unfortunately leads to the actual tree-climbing lads having to climb dodgy trees as fast as possible... Within utilities there are often stipulations with regards ppe which can make simple tasks harder, and can subsequently lead to increased task-loading issues for climbers (re-sheathing a climbing saw between cuts, wearing cut-proof gloves whilst using a silky etc). I don’t personally believe these HSEQ statistic-driven ‘solutions’ always benefit overall site safety (from both a practical view and importantly also from an alienation-of-the-workforce, those-desk-pushers-don’t-know-what-they-are-talking-about-so-we-might-as-well-ignore-them angle). These issues are unlikely to be addressed as accountants hold the purse strings at the end of the day - it is much easier for those in charge to say ‘You need more anchor points’ and then (unfortunately rightly from a legal point of view) be able to point the blame at the individual climber who doesn’t adhere to this as being at fault when corners are cut and accidents happen. I’m not sure what the answer is - one is obviously less likely to fall to the ground if tied in with double/triple/quadruple the number of ropes and anchor points but the limited statistics available don’t give the full picture. The HSE are essentially God in this scenario (certainly from a legal point of view) - I guess it will basically become an on-site paperwork exercise risk assessing two ropes out where their use makes the job more hazardous than it needs to be.

Terrible photo I’m afraid but this included fork at 6 foot AGL on a sycamore was riddled with what I’m sure was K.deusta, yet no evidence lower down on the stem.

Yes