treequip

Thank you for your opinion. I will weight it with your past performance, going as you have from the bones of your buttocks to earning several grand a day over the space of a couple of months. Having done that I will then chuck your opinion in the round file where it clearly belongs.

Yes. ........

Well done that man, I rescued a shrew today, it took cover in the last cut on a huuuuuge stump, little bugger nipped me for my trouble, still! it's not as if I had been handling a toad and was going to grow warts:laugh1: Gotta go now, jogging off to the back of the truck to get unloaded

Quite right too, and there are plenty of people who thought the same and still got hurt

They are working to the petroleum regulations often as modified by company policy. When you have finished beating the jobsworth up, ask yourself this Why don't the manufacturers of combi cans simply make them comply with the regulations because at the moment they aren't compliant.

Felix you are wasted on manual work, move over guys there is a new analyst in town:thumbup1:

Fixed that for ya:laugh1:

We went through this a while back, this only works for forestry where the HSE has the big players by the reproductives, I already said this model wont work in arb

Not give you any work

A dozen free range eggs, omelettetastic:biggrin:

I am not a member so I don't expect them to do anything for me, are you a member?

Nope...

Its a refresher not a re take, as an example, the first aid FAW is a 3/4 day course and the refresher is 3 hours. Seems you boys may have been labouring under a false assumption

Groan.... Once again you seem to think the training providers invent courses. They don't, there wouldn't be a blower course because there wouldn't be demand and thus no need for it. And there is bugger all logical about the way you have thought that through

As I said continuing to miss the point. I wouldn't do a refresher for any of the reasons you cited but I bloody well would if the man handing out the contracts said I had to have it.

Continuing with missing the point, the training that people want are the NPTC competencies, most wont pay for anything else. To get an acceptable pass rate you need to teach to the syllabus provided by the awarding body because that's what the learners will be assessed on. Sooooo it would seem you are mistaken, the training providers aren't setting themselves up as an authority, they are providing training to a syllabus provided by others. That's also the system that teashes your kids operates.

So lets assume that's true and the HSE knows that, how are they going to identify those people who fit your criteria and those who fall short? Perhaps they could have an assessment of competencies to decide?

How attached do you recon they ought to be, they oversee the entire world of work in the UK. I doubt that they are that attached to any industry If they got that involed, an I for one am glad they aren't more interested it would cost a fortune, cheaper to do the refresher and not have someone looking ove your shoulder methinks

I think nielson might be another way of spelling chinesedrosschainsaw Neilsen 12 Petrol Chainsaw With Neilsen Bar Chain

You have been economical with your quote there, it says required for use in connection with the machine the operative word is USE, the chipper doesn't use chips it produces them. Its not a point I would want to be arguing with VOSA at the side of the road

That exemption isn't about not about "not used for other purposes", its specifically about the goods carried so if you are carting chip or logs away it wont cover you.

Very civilised, have you got a cup of tea to go with that?

Completely wrong, the reason that this is happening is because the HSE has identified an unacceptable rate of accidents in forestry, in that industry there are a couple of big players dominating the market so all that's needed is to get them to comply and job done. That is the standard "M.O." for the HSE but because of the lack of single major players in arb means that model simply wont work. If it did they would have handled the top handle saw thing that way instead of the much weaker manufacturers accord method. The accident stats for forestry are pretty accurate because of the way the HSE categorised accidents in industry groups and for the most part "have a go's" don't get into the woods in the same way they do in arb. Arb accident stats are polluted because anyone who comes unstuck whilst wielding a chainsaw is designated arb by the HSE. In actual fact many are actually other trades that have had a go and come unstuck. The people in the know at the HSE are aware of this. As far as your inference that the HSE are going to roll this out to the arb sector goes, could you explain how they are going to make that work please?

It was both, the bullock spoke to the bull and the bull answered, although cattle talking is all a bit bovine excrement

Its covered in the method statement 3.1 staff will jog when empty handed 3.2 staff not jogging when empty handed will get the cattle prod