Bolt

I thought Drax in Kent suckled up gas.

What makes you think I claimed that?

errrrrr no, I haven’t. :- ) But I have seen this though...... Sources of UK Electricity 9 minutes ago. we are probably getting more nuclear electricity from France, than we are getting Electricity from burning coal. UK coal usage for electricity generation over last 24 hours. A mere 5% from coal ( brownish smudge 3rd from bottom of graph). Absolutely dwarfed by wind ( light blue, 4th from bottom.

Only a shame ‘the heart’ is currently set on the all new T540i xp. If I place an order on one of them, it may well put a whole new meaning into the term “battery saw”!! Is the new Stihl working out well for you?

As with most things, the secret is not to get caught!!!

If I got caught buying a pair of them on Valentine’s Day, it wouldn’t be the love that I was feeling!!!! :- )

Not as wonky as Spuddogs bar.

@rich rule.....How about ITCC Team Competition Champion 2017? ITCC Hall of Champions WWW.ITCC-ISA.COM

I thought Jo, but as you said it first, how about Bo. Arboricultural Association - Women in Trees – Competitors Special WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <div class= col-md-12 ><img alt= Bo Hammarstrand in her element class= img-responsive img-fluid... look, here they are in the same article..... how neat is that!

Hey, I'd love a babycham.

If you see “hidden agenda” that is up to you. I asked him if he possibly had SRT or training on his agenda. He later confirmed it was training. Fair enough. I don’t see an agenda by definition as being negative. If I went to a meeting and they read out the agenda, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid. If however, the chairman admitted that the meeting had no agenda, I would wonder if I was wasting my time. If they announced they had a ‘hidden agenda’, I would like to think I would up and leave!

Almost. To paraphrase the draft ICOP for ‘MRT’ (their phase not mine) the requirements appear to be.... You must have a one system that is long enough to reach the ground uninterrupted at any point in the climb (to reach the ground in one pitch in the case of self rescue). You must be attached to a backup system (so this means you actually require two backup systems with you in order to allow for reattachment / rope advance). At least one of your backup systems must be long enough to reach the ground to ensure a backed-up final descent (I.e. from a convenient lowish branch to the ground). Deviations from this are only for exceptional or emergency situations, and should be satisfactorily risk assessed prior. (This is from my unreliable human memory.... always happy to stand corrected.) If you are not in the UK, it won’t affect you. I don’t really see it having a great effect on me either.

As for @Jake Andrews, I read one of his questions whilst I was killing time wandering about Tescos, and I admit that I totally got the wrong end of the stick. When I read his comments later, I saw my error and apologised for the wholly inappropriate tone of my comment. Jake had detailed his desire to drive improvements to the quality of training, and the professional standards of the industry, and I find them highly admirable. I have read nothing to suggest Jake has a “hidden agenda”, and I don’t remember ever claiming that I think he has.

......anyway, putting aside the point that I (unlike you) have not accused anyone of having a “hidden agenda”, another member has repeatedly insisted that the draft ICOP states that a climber MUST have two climbing systems that are both long enough to reach the ground throughout the climb. Now this is clearly not true for MRT, as anyone who has read the ICOP can see. It would therefore appear that the member in question either has made a genuine mistake about the “two long rope” business, or, they know it’s not true, but for some strange reason, they see fit to keep repeating it anyway. I have repeatedly asked them to identify where the draft ICOP says that for MRT you have to have these 2 long rope, and that can’t or won’t do it. They must therefore know that the requirement for 2 long ropes is indeed not in the draft ICOP, but they continued to to claim it was, and they also continued also pose scenarios that implied that it was. I struggled to understand their motivation, that is all.

Well, @Rich Rule... that’s an intriguing question. I think what it boils down to is this.... When we read something, we take the info on board, but we can interpret that info in a number of ways.... A) One outcome is that we read the words and our brain processes the information in such a way that we can remember the info, draw on it and accurately relay it to others, pretty much verbatim (handy if we want to recount the content of an assessment schedule, for instance). B) Another outcome is that we read the words, but subconsciously struggle to accept them, so in an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance, our brain finds the need to edit them prior to storage. What we remember is a different version of what was written, although we believe our version is a correct representation of what we read (a ‘Chinese whispers’ type scenario). C) We read the words, but we disagree with them, so although we acknowledge that we have read them, we just disregard them because we prefer our ‘version’ which is better suited to meet our beliefs or requirements. (Useful if we want to tweak to truth to suit our own needs). Anyway.... You say that have read through this and other threads, so, taking the 3 points above into account, you may well be confident that the question “Why do yo keep accusing people of having hidden agendas?” is a result of “A” i.e. you accurately recalling what I wrote... As it turns out, you question stems from either “B” You believing you recall what I wrote... or (hopefully not ) “C” You knowing that your question is not what I wrote, but not caring because your question has more impact as it is... The mind certainly is a strange place, isn’t it!

@difflock :- )

@Marc The term Personal Fall Protection System comes straight from Schedule 5, Part 1 of WaHR 2005 It is used as a general term that includes: Work Positioning Systems (What it was generally assumed that DdRT type systems were) Rope Access and Positioning Systems (What some people believed SRT was, (although some didn’t, because this definition require a higher level of ‘compliance’ than Work Positioning Systems do)) Fall Arrest Systems (Systems that allow you to fall, and decelerate you safely..... we don’t talk about them) Work Restraint Systems. (Such as a short strop that holds you into a MEWP bucket, so you can’t fall out). In that respect, the diagram is non-prescriptive in what type of system (or technique) you choose to use.

But employers with large staff turnovers don’t do that. They’re looking for the next member of staff to fulfil the contract they.... underpriced. An employer has a legal obligation to provide competent staff. This goes way beyond just training and includes experience, aptitude, and physical ability. Although employers should be giving this their utmost attention, far too many (from the large to the small) are too busy being fixated in a financial race to the bottom. Climbing up a tree, with a second long rope, may not go very far in fixing that.

An assessor doing an NPTC 308 assessment has a couple of hours tops to draw an impression of whether someone is cut out to do aerial chainsaw. What is more, the assessors job is to judge against a published criteria, not to judge the employability of a candidate. An employer has days / weeks / months to build a relationship with a worker and judge their suitability... surely employers are in a better position to ‘filter people out’ before they fuck themselves and the rest of us over?

I fear the problem is that our industry seems to expect (or be under the impression) that staff with an NPTC ticket are fully trained and competent. Regardless of the quality, length or high benchmark of any training program, you will never get workplace ready, experienced and competent staff. For them, they need to actually do the job, and that requires training on the job. Proper training, not box ticking exercises. Unfortunately, If you want proper trained staff, you will only achieve that by the entire industry stepping up and embracing a proper, vocationally assesses apprenticeship scheme. I don’t think the industry is quite ready for that yet.

Hi Scotspine Having carefully read the draft ICOP, I think I have a solution for your DdRT (MRT as the ICOP calls it) conundrum that’s not only keeps me within the scope of current legislation, but also maintains my insurability! Do-ya-wanna-hear-it, ‘eh? Do-ya-wanna?

Hi Jake, Sorry. You are completely correct. There is no need to get personal, and I apologise if my written comments caused offence or annoyance. Alas, a throwaway and flippant remark that is made in conversation can take on far more significance when written down. Having said that, I actually do hope you are not employed in a role that requires you to hand out h+s advice, or write company policy, but only because both those roles are nowhere near as much fun as clambering around the canopy, cutting the trees that no one else will.

Very effective looking hat you’ve got there.

@Marc I only started looking into this the other day (up to that point I was happily absorbed in the TVI woodland thread). From the impression I had picked up upto that point, I gathered that it was going to be law (according to the HSE) that you had to have two complete systems, able to reach the deck at all times. Once I had actually looked with my own eyes at the draft ICOP, I saw that there appeared to be a certain amount of hearsay, disinformation and 4th columning going on. Reading the draft ICOP is not hard. I am not interested in who apparently said what to whom. I am not interested in personal agendas, or fake news. I urge everyone to read the ICOP, draw their own conclusions from what is actually written (NOT from what some bloke on the internet seems to have dreamt up) and complete the consultation survey for themselves.