Andy Clark

Some good views gents, but unfortunately it's not as simple as people are making out. Rik, if you go ahead and fell the tree, and it turns out to be the "other" neighbours tree, then it would be you who would be up in court and not your customer. Put it this way, if your customer said they owned a shop, and asked you to put a brick through the front window............. ??? No brainer really. I wouldn't bother playing mediator. As some of said, it can create a nightmare scenario where you end up getting stuck in the middle, having to play "softly softly" with both parties......... Just get your customer to sort it out. Ask for written confirmation of ownership, which has been signed/dated etc by the "other" neighbour.

I've never had it on a Vermeer, but had it with Kubota engines on Jensens and Timberwolfs. The fins on the radiator can get blocked with sawdust/chipdust caused by the fan blowing/sucking air through the rad. Try getting the blower in through the side of the engine bay, and blowing any muck back out through the rad.

Gents gents gents....... This thread seems to have gone somewhat off topic. Have we not already done the TI discussion on a.n.other thread?? (p.s, cheers for all the words of encouragement re the giving up smoking. It's getting easier, but to be honest, i'm starting to quite like the "tetchy" edge that the cravings give me. )

I sure am, HD...... Trying, but failing dreadfully. I ran out of fingernails to chew, so am back on 10/day.

Strangely enough, this subject has been floating round the UKTC forum lately. I think that the order of the day, as everyone else has already mentioned, is that the biggest issue to cover would be "Lone Working". If you PM me off forum, i should be able to help you out with a few relevant docs.

Try this...... The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 No. 320

It's not THAT bad.... tbh, most of it is just common sense really. It's just about getting everyone to all sing to the same hymn sheet. It already aplies to Arb, as it's pretty generic stuff rather than just "construction" industry specific. People like fountains, Tilhill etc all have to work to it on the utility/rail contracts....... With all the subby companies that peeps like this use, you have to make sure that they're all covered by standardised procedures/policies.

Construction (Design and Management) regulations 2007. Long story short, it's geared for big construction sites, where multiple contractors all work in conjunction with each other. It's supposed to set a "heirarchy" structure and cover the gap in the differences between different companies H&S policies. ISH!!

More than likely. Most insurers are pushing it now, since the realease of the HSE SIM. HSE_SIM_01_2007_05.pdf

Not at all Mr H..... you know what it's like.... i like to "do me bit".

Just going back a step or two here...... Sorry chap, but you're slightly mistaken to that end. Currently, there's no such definable timeframe whereby people "need" to prove inspection. And even then, there is no precedence other than the level of knowledge of the surveyor, to indicate what type of survey is carried out. Until such time as the NTSG formulate a unified and appropriate benchmark, the only criterion that needs to be met is based on extrapolation of the rulings from several key legal cases......... Chapman v Barking and Dagenham LBC (which gave us HSE SIM 01/2007/05) Poll v Bartholomew (which set the qualification level of the surveyor) Atkins v Scott (which gave an often used clause relating to "competent person") Using these three, plus the HSE SIM, the best scenario that can currently be gauged is that - "A defensible and recorded method of tree inspection must be in place, whereby trees are inspected at a frequency level which corresponds to their associated and apportioned level of risk, by persons whose knowledge level corresponds to the required level of inspection" From "the customer" perspective, that's all they "need" to do to be legally covered........ From your perspective, do you REALLY need to spend loads on decay detection equipment that your customers don't really "need" you to use??? Personally, I'd advise that you concentrate on furthering and re-enforcing your own knowledge level first (extra education will ALWAYS be a benefit) with things like CAD and report writing skills, then re look at the whole equipment issue, once you've built up more of a guaranteed client base. If you need Picus or others in the meantime, sub it out and pocket the commission.

Well, the time has come to call it a day, and bid a fond farewell to those little white and brown sticks that have been my beloved travelling companion through good times and bad....... Fo 20 years now, those suculent little devils have taken pride of place in my pocket. O.k, a close second, next to the wallet. AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!! :angryfire::angryfire: I'm struggling...... A LOT!!!!!!!! Anyone got any good tips or advice on how to refrain from ripping peoples heads off??

"Giggeddy Giggeddy"

Anyone recall the Timberwolf stand at the show before last?? If you read this Timberwolf, can we have a repeat performance at this years show please??

The three applications you mention HD, are all very different and look at different approaches to tree/hazard assessment....... QTRA concentrates more on calculating the associated risk level, by giving most consideration to the target zone...... Hence why non arbs can use the system, as it requires very little in the way of Arb/tree knowledge...... where as VTA looks more towards assessing the structural integrity of the tree, and gives consideration to the likelhood/probability of a failure part. LANTRA PTI "sort of" covers both angles, but tends to deal more with the practical methodology of actually carrying out the inspection. It is a recognise level 3 academic qual though, so if you don't have such things as ND or tech.cert, it's a good way to tick that box. To be honest, if yo're looking to use any of these, i'd also give serious consideration to looking at tree valuation and appraisal methods too. Things like CAVAT, the CTLA method, or even Helliwell......... Condeming a tree based on it's hazard/failiure likelyhood is one thing, but when you know the value of the tree also, you do tend to look at makng other recomendations than just "Fell, and re-plant with similar species". To echo Bundles comments, quals are only as good as the person using them. All these are a good starting block to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding, but it's knowing how and when you apply the relevant system which is the hard part. It's wise to remember that it's a similar principle to NPTC cs units...... yes, they prove competency, but being competent to use a chainsaw doesn't mean you're an Arborist..... it just means you're competent to use a chainsaw.

I never met Mick personally, but his reputation definately preceded him and as a result i'm certainly aware of his love and passion for the job. It's always a sad day when we lose one of our own. RIP to a true professional.

There's also TROBI..... Local UK big trees from The Tree Register Very worthwhile.

I'll second that, too.... Ask that the TO meets you on site to discuss the works. That way anything that seems to be in the "is it/isn't it" pre/post 73 order category, HE can decide and confirm. After the meeting, put it in writing and just ask that he confirms what was said on site. Throw in a clearly marked site plan and plenty of photos for reference. Once you've got that, use planning portal do make the application, including a copy of the confirmation from the site meeting. Jobs a goodun.

I'll second that...... Ask them to send you through a copy of the order.

Personally, I think the time of the little guy is upon us....... O.k, at the moment all the big contracts are tied up with the big boys, but don't forget that most of those contracts were quoted/won pre "recession". So it's fine for now, as the term of the contract guarantees bread and butter work to keep the big boys afloat, but what about next time around?? What about when they're quoting to renew the contract in a much cheaper and more competitive marketplace? Take a housing assoc. contract for example........ less income for the tenant/prospective tenant, means rent has to drop in order for the assoc. to remain competitive - less income for the assoc. means less available funding for capital expenditure - which means outsourced works will have to be sourced at a lower cost. And it's already happeing to a certain extent. Take all the redundancies..... nothing more than a company cutting it's overheads, so as to ensure maximum profit with the limited income. But that can only last for so long. Simple economics chaps...... it's all relative.

Yes, but where is the acknowledgement of integration??

Marcus, it's not so much about "only being a need" for VTA type inspection methods, it's about what the customer wants! And in 90 % of cases, unless as i stated in my first post it is a tree/target of significant value, it will always come down to price! Look chaps, I'm no scientist..... I'm a contract manager with an extensive practical arb background. Like i've said since my opening post, i have neither criticism nor interest in the scientific in's and out's - personally, I think anything that furthers our understanding of tree physiology is great...... but you're trying to sell something that relies on people sense of "doing the right thing".... Why not keep it as a purely research based tool/application? Why come on here trying to convince people that it has a sustainable commercial value?

That doesn't answer the question Andrew...... i asked when you expect to receive acknowledgement of integration.

In my earlier posting, i made mention of the looooooooong list of industry recognised and used alternatives...... QTRA, VTA, THREATS etc..... In response, you make mention that TI can be integrated with these methods...... Question is, when will you/Andrew in whatever guise you so deem, be in reciept of acknowledgement of this integration, from the instigators of these "other" peer reviewed assessment methods?