Andy Clark

Gents, The pure and simple fact of the matter is the 1.2m from kerbside rule... If you are working within 1.2m of the kerbside (ie, on the footpath, within 1.2m of the road), you are classed as being "on highway", and are therefore bound by law to fully comply with ALL relevant highway regs, including NRSW certs of competency in installing signs and cones. Failure to comply can even result in points on your driving licence!!!! (Chapter 8 is a bit defunct now (as it is merely a guideline), since the intro of the NRSW certs of competency.)

Hmmmm.... how best to reply..... Firstly, the Do'C bit... Not at all, i'm well aware that others were involved and didn't mean to sound like i was trumpet blowing. And agreed, the ICF route perhaps isn't best (yet).... BUT, compared to the SocEnv route that our main industry org is pushing, is it at least not a step in the right (better) direction?? I mean, Rome weren't built in a day, right, but surely most of us in the industry would prefer to be aligned with Arb than enviro?? Even if it was in title alone?? O.k... if SocEnv is deemed better/more relevant than ICF, then why not at least push SocEnv for Chartered Arb status?? And as for the grey area bit..... Not really sure if the manual handling issue is perhaps the best analogy (personally i think there's much bigger and yet simpler fish to fry at the mo).... The point i'm trying to make is that no matter what H&S part/segment/issue/regulation/act is, the leading body should be the ones who are at least seen to be setting the example/standard, OR leading/helping the industry in how best to comply in A DEFENSIBLE manner, rather than be the ones to add to the confusion. Take Tom D's MEWP scenario for example... The bottom line is, if using a MEWP, imo what the AA SHOULD be saying is ... "Though shalt have NPTC unit CS47, and though shalt have the relevant IPAF cert comp. Though shalt also be using said MEWP wherever is deemed practical in line with both the required quals and the WAH regs." (or words to that effect) But what do we get?? "Here's a guideline, for which we'll charge you a tenner" (in a belligerent tone) A guideline?? A GUIDELINE???? Don't we get enough of those direct from the HSE as it is, without the industry orgs adding to it?? And wouldn't the industry orgs acheive so much more by helping/ defining/teaching the rest of us, how best to "defensibly" comply with the original guideline?? NO, basically, they wouldn't. Because that would create a level playing field, and therefore ultimately lead to competition to their more prestigious AAAC's. I mean, you don't hear warehouse forklift drivers moaning that they they have to do the forklift licence.... you especialy don't find them reading through reams and reams of "guidelines", only to be expected to decide for themselves what the relevant course of action is.... NO, they have a licence, and they drive a forklift... SIMPLE! Cast your mind back Kev, to the matter of "Positive action stop controls" on chippers 10-12 years ago.... God, what an uproar THAT was at the time... A new ruling brought in, by the former inspector of factories who was responsible for bringing in those big red "STOP" buttons you now find beside industrial warehouse/factory machinery... But who was the leading light in that scenario?? Contractors?? The industry orgs?? Or was it the chipper manufacturers themselves?? Who should it have been??? (Sorry mate... 4 beers, beats red wine hands down! )

Kev, I think what Tom D is trying to say, is that it is more a case of "by implication". I mean, take the AAAC criteria for example...... a very ambiguous doc, that practically allows contractors to (for want of a better phrase) "write their own rules". But yet c'mon.... is it REALLY that difficult to stand up, be counted, and start trying to put a stop to all the "grey area" nonsense and start pushing more towards a standardised industry? Take their chartered route for example.... Charterted Environmentalist, Via SocEnv?? Eh?? Why is it so difficult for them to do it, but yet people like Dealga O'Callaghan can work beside the ICF, and come up with the Charted Arboriculturist status ?? (p.s... Jonathan Hazel is director of Arb for Glendale/Parkwood holdings... Hardly a small independent consultancy eh?)

Kev, don't worry about it... like I said, (in a slightly more sarcastic tone) despite the OCA link we've unfortunately never actually met, but i've done enough of my homework over the years to know that you're very passionate about the industry.... Red wine or not mate, that ain't a bad thing...... personally, i'd had a rubbish day and couldn't sleep for love nor money (hence posting at 2am or something silly), so wasn't really in the mood for being tactful and diplomatic either.... So let's consider that as a nod, a handshake, and a humble smile then eh??

As Matty an Steve both suggest, you could try modifying by adding/adjusting wraps, but a lot of it will depend on the cord you're using. You could also try playing around with a couple of other knots that are very similar principal to the VT..... There's loads out there these days.... the Happy (and the Very Happy)... the Knut.... Personally, I find these two work pretty well with tending pulleys... The Distel SherrillTree | Tree Gear. Tree People. Professional Tree Care The Howard Hitch http://www.tree-consult.org/images/pdf/de/howard_hitch.pdf (ignore the writing, but look at pic3)

Oh, and one more thing..... Kev, if you re-read my original post, you'll notice that I never once mentioned the AA....... in fact,the only organisation I mentioned by name was AFAG, which is of course a constituent sub committee of the HSE. Interesting to see which conclusions and comparisons you drew from my post though. So just remind me again...how does it go...?? Ah yes... that's the kiddy.

Dean, while i'm on a roll...... here's a load more stuff too. This is from the "Required Quals" section of the aforementioned criteria... again, slightly outdated, so best to just use as guidance. Below is a list of all required Certificates of Competence that must be held be held and applied in line with the relevant practical operations undertaken. Please note that certificates denoted with * must be held as a bare minimum to hold Member status. Also note that whilst consideration is given to academic qualifications, Approved Members are required to also hold the relevant and supporting Certificates of Competency in-line with the operations undertaken. NPTC Certificates of competence for Ground-worker Operations *CS30/Part I - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – Maintenance of the chainsaw *CS30/Part II - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – On Site preparation and basic cross-cutting CS38/Part II - Conduct Aerial Rescue CS45 - Arboricultural Ground-worker NPTC Certificate of competence for Tree Felling Operations *CS30/Part I - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – Maintenance of the chainsaw *CS30/Part II - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – On Site preparation and basic cross cutting *CS31 - Fell and process small trees CS32 - Fell and Process medium trees CS33 - Fell and Process large trees CS34 - Process Individual Windblow trees CS35 - Process Multiple Windblow trees NPTC Certificate of competence for Tree Climbing Operations *CS38/Part 1 - Climb a tree *CS38/Part II - Conduct Aerial Rescue *CS39 - Use of a chainsaw from a rope and harness CS40 - Carry out pruning operations CS41 - Carry out dismantling operations CS46 - Re-pollarding NPTC Certificate of competence for Brushwood Chipper Operations Part 1 - Prepare the brushwood chipper for operation Part II - Operate the brushwood chipper Part III - Maintain the brushwood chipper NPTC Certificate of competence for Stump Grinding Operations Part 1 - Prepare the stump grinder for operation Part II - Operate the stump grinder Part III - Maintain stump grinder NPTC Certificate of competence for Pesticide/Herbicide Application PA01 - Foundation module PA06 - Hand held applicators NPTC Certificate of competence for MEWP Operations CS47 - Use of Chainsaw from a MEWP IPAF Powered Access License (please note that licence held, must be relevant to equipment used) 1b - Static Boom 3b - Mobile Boom SPECIAL - Including IAD C&G NRSWA Street Works Qualifications Unit 002 - Signing, Lighting and Guarding Unit 010 - Monitoring Signing, Lighting and Guarding Considered Academic Qualifications: City& Guilds Phase II in Arboriculture Btec/EDEXCEL National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture) Btec/EDEXCEL National Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture) RFS Certificate in Arboriculture Higher National Certificate in Arboriculture Higher National Diploma in Arboriculture RFS Professional Diploma in Arboriculture I think the key point to remember in all of this though, relates to company size. I mean, your original post asked the question in relation to a 1-2 man band. Well let's not forget, that unless you have 5 employees or more, LEGALLY you don't need a great deal of the H&S stuff (if any), so wouldn't realistically be expected to comply. (especially for your domestic and back garden work) HOWEVER.... thanks to this good ol' "where there's a blame, there's a claim" society we now live in, in order to mitigate against the fear/threat of inherent liability, MOST large companies you work for (either as a subby or standalone contractor) and 90% of local authorities, will insist that you have it pretty much ALL in place, so as to alleviate their own risk of prosecution under H&SWA. Hence why more and more BIG companies, are winning the BIG jobs.... regardless of quality of work. So think the bottom line in all of this, really depends on who you want your client base to be, how much you want the work, and how much "above and beyond" you're prepared to go in order to compete.

Indeed he did Kev... indeed he did. Anyway.... Dean, To steer this thread back on track, re: H&S Standards and your original doc..... Try this for an alternative..... It's the H&S doc extract from a criteria i wrote a while back. I think you'll find it slightly less ambiguous, although it's admittedly a bit outdated now..... the bit about Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 is petty defunct now, as arb waste (Logs and chip etc) was granted exemption not so long ago. Even so, it should give you a good idea of "alternative" criteria requirements. All company members are required to provide a copy of their current Manual of Safe Working Practices that must be signed by the person stated as being responsible for Health and Safety management . Whilst a detailed Health and Safety policy is not required by law for companies holding less than 5 employees, companies falling into this category are urged to aim towards full compliance. This policy must include sections detailing: Current Health and Safety Policy Statement, with a clearly defined Management Responsibility Structure. Risk Assessment Policy in accordance with The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Method Statements Clearly defined Risk assessing procedure (Site Specific/Generic) Review (Frequency and date of next review) Hazard Reporting and Investigation Policy in accordance with RIDDOR 1998 Clearly defined Reporting Procedure Investigation Protocol Accident and Incident Reporting Policy in accordance with RIDDOR 1998 Clearly defined Accident and Incident Reporting Procedure Non Employees/Members of the Public Control of Hazardous Substances Policy in accordance with COSHH 1998 COSHH and Pesticide Safety Procedure and FEPA Requirements COSHH Assessment Procedure Spill and Contamination Procedure Fire and Explosion Avoidance Policy in accordance with DSEAR 2002 Appropriate and Identified Fuel/Substance Storage ATEX Zoning Fire Safety Training/Designated Fire Marshall Defined Smoking/No-Smoking Areas Fire Extinguisher provisions Personal Protective Equipment Policy in accordance with the PUWER 1992 and Noise at Work Regulations 1989 PPE Requirements and Issue procedure Independent LOLER Inspection/examination procedures for PPE Issue Climbing Equipment Requesting re-issue/replacement procedure Tools and Equipment Maintenance Policy in accordance with the PUWER 1992 and Noise at Work Regulations 1989 Defect Reporting Procedure Routine Maintenance Schedule Independent LOLER Examination/Inspection Procedure for Lifting and Lowering equipment Maintenance Responsibility Working at Height Policy in accordance with the Work at Height Regulations 2005 Ladder usage MEWP usage Work at Height Avoidance Waste/Green Waste disposal Policy in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 Woodchip and Log Disposal procedures Recycling Waste Carrier Registration Waste Transfer operations Working Adjacent Highways Policy in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 Working on Highways Use of signs and cones Marking out of worksites (Chapter 8) [/font] (P.s.... i wrote it for free! )

Blimey... Well, i'm not even going to begin trying to step up to the plate with that one Kev. It's fairly obvious from the length of the post, that it's a subject you feel very... erm... "passionate" about, and I for one commend that. (Ahem)...HOWEVER.... We've all been there, and all done it. Some perhaps from different perspectives than others, which therefore gives very different views (and ultimately OPINIONS) as to what goes on behind the scenes. For example, you mention the AXA/insurance issues back in the early 00's.... yes, agreed, the AA (amongst others) were seen to do their bit to work towards resolving the situation.... BUT... at the same time, was there not also an EX AA CHAIRMAN, pushing HIS OWN arb insurance company, by which in order to attain cover YOU HAD to become an accredited member (by meeting a criteria very similar to that of the AAAC), PLUS pay an annual membership fee, PLUS be annually audited? And take examples of more recent years.... NHSS18 for example!! In the numerous meetings at Stonely as part of the consultation process, did the Arb related members of the consultation committee under the guise of representing the AA , not push that AAAC members should be automatically accredited as NHSS 18 compliant? Plus, lets not forget that those Arb related members, are again, senior directors of contracting companies that the Highways Agency already uses. (I'll send you a copy of Jonathan Hazells e-mail reply on the subject... Makes VERY interesting reading) Therefore...... A) Why is the highways agency using its own contractors, to assist in writing its contractor criteria?? and B) Why were the AA pushing for auto-accreditation, based on it's own AAAC criteria? So my claims of "conflict of interest" is Tripe eh?? Erm, think i'll leave that one for the jury to decide. (P.s... It's a shame we never actually met when i used to run the old OCA panel of contractors..... remind me to send you a copy of the updated membership criteria. You'll love it )

Dean, i've just e-mailed you some stuff too.

Ooo...ooo.. a soapbox moment!! Yaaaaaaayyyy, my favourite. Dean, to be honest, don't pay too much attention to it. It's not much more than a "hoop jumping" exercise, that holds little resemblance to anything other than political self gratification. I mean, if you read the footnote on each page.... the doc is dated 2003!!! EH?? What's THAT all about?? And that's not even including the pointless, unclear and nonsensically ambiguous criteria definitions!! OR, the fact that the listed constituent members of the "Joint Industry Working Party" (or AFAG as it is more widely known these days) is mostly made up of directors/senior managers/stock holders etc, of some VERY big corporate entities, so therefore exhibits an ENORMOUS amount of "conflict of interests". In all reality, It's just another indication of how far behind the times and out of touch with the industry certain organisations are, and also yet another reminder of exactly how little these bodies do in order to accurately regulate and represent the industry as a whole.

R/H drive too.... nice!! Is it easier to drive than the old one??

And for my 3rd and final offering...... One that lovingly call "Like father, like son." My 8 year old (he was about 5 1/2 - 6 at the time), aspiring to follow in his fathers footsteps. Silly boy!!

O.k.... offering no.2.... Me and Tommy B+ (sorry chap, lol), climbing "IN DRAG" for Comic Relief 2 years ago. As you can see.... Andy is sporting a little black cocktail number. With an ellegant fine strapped back, and a hemline cut just above the knee, this number shouts "Evening ware sophistication" Tommy B+ is plumping for the practical country look in a beige ankle length skirt. The perfect practical choice for a day in the fields, but yet refined enough for that "apres" function also. (not sure about the bra though). We threw the gauntlet down to our students, with the challenge that if they raised over £100, we would climb in drag..... £160 later..... bugger!

That was my last job as a full time Climber, so I hung up my harness as a happy bunny.

O.k.... here goes my efforts..... Picture the scenario.... THE most perfect spring day you can imagine.. nice and warm (but not hot and sweaty).... hardly a cloud in the sky, and not a breath of wind...... 124(ish)ft (i seem to remember that's what we measured it at) lightning struck Welingtonia..... a slight lean in the right direction (gained from the kink that'd developed as a result of the lightning strike), and about 10ft spare in garden width.... no pulling rope, no winch cable, just gob... backcut... a quick "spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch".... and prey the hinge held....

[quote name=Rich Rule; can you add me on fbook' date=' wanna have a look at those pic. cheers rich[/quote] No Worries chap.... Gonna need to know how to find you though. What's your full name/what groups you a member of etc?

It's o.k.... call off the hounds... the mystery has been solved. Turns out that Mr Sylvatica was the gentleman on the end of the camera whilst i was on the end of the saw, therefore is well and trully entitled to post the pics. And with that, i would like to offer my humble apologies to the person involved...... "Sorry Martin"

I think i've just broken my laptop........ I did wonder if giving Arbtalk the bumps, was such a good idea. Doh!!

Just sent you a friend request on F/book John..... Have a look for yourself..... "Big Cedar Wallops"

And then some!! Those photos are on my Facebook page under the album title of "Big Cedar Wallops" (all those Arbtalkers that are also facebook friends, please feel free to have a look!)..... I should know, as it was me doing the tree!! Mr/Mrs Sylvatica here (whoever they may be), has unfortunately been caught red handed, dabbling with a bit of plagiarism!!

Yes, it IS the sequence that's important..... but what's more important is that they are MY PHOTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who are you, and how he hell did you get my photos?????

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't just trying to turn this into a surveying issue (hense the use of the word 'management' also), more trying to say that all anyone can do, is be aware of and try and cover ALL angles, rather than utilise loopholes in one in order to alleviate another.