AA Teccie (Paul)

Hmmm, not sure about the CEUs thing but my understanding is your existing ISA Cert Arb is deemed, and recognised as such by the Euro. Arb Council, an equivalent to ETW. IN practice I think this would be generally taken as reda anyway given the recognition and longer existence of the ISA qual. but to what extent, in pratice, it works the other way round I don't know. NOW about that 'ArbAC' & CHAS thing.....just, managed to stop myself, ha!!!

REALLY???...sorry thought I'd forgot to mention it previoulsy...'tee hee!'

Re "double bubble" (nicely put Hama!) don't forget 'ArbAC' & CHAS...the tree contracting industry 'BOGOF(f)', ha!

Yup, any opportunity to improve yer knowledge, beit via this forum OR attendance on a more formal course of study, is "a good idea" and if you look at the names mentioned, i.e. Andy Summerly (TreeLife), Reg Harris (Urban Forestry, de Gouret (Sweden), they are all very respected individuals wihtin the industry. The qual is alos recognised as an equivalency to the ISA Certified Arborist and hence they have a mutual 'deemed to satisfy' arrangement (or similar) in place to support such. Gofrit, n enjoy, is my advice. Cheers.. Paul

Sorry, was just a suggestion, but then surveys / reports / advice is their principle business and I guess, accordingly, they charge a professional fee. Too often, I believe, we undervalue ourselves as an industry and whilst acknowledging times are hard and the market place is tough we need to be careful not to do so. Hope you get it sorted. Paul

Cud try Dom Scanlon (Aspect Tree Consultancy) nr. Ivybridge tel. 01548 831531

Hi 'Chilterns', As others have indicated it's not only the land based colleges that do the chainsaw etc. training and assessments, there are also many private traiing providers out there. See Chainsaw Training Courses - Lantra Awards UK Good luck and 'welcome to the industry'...enjoy! Paul

Hi all, my quick 'twopenneth worth'...if i may. 3 possible scenarios to a 30% reduction on your 100ft tree: 1. Tree (height) reduction = 100ft down to 70ft 2. Tree (linear/radial) crown reduction = 100ft down to 79ft (tree has, for instance, 30ft clear stem, i.e. a crown height of 70ft, therefore 30% of 70ft = 21m hence 70-21=49 + 30ft(clear stem) = 79ft) 3. Tree (volume) crown reduction = 100ft down to 93.6ft (tree has, for instance, 30ft clear stem, i.e. a crown height of 70ft, therefore 12% (BS3998 cited linear equiv. to 30% crown volume reduction) of 70ft = 8.4m hence 70-8.4=63.6 + 30ft(clear stem) = 93.6ft) SORRY, I hope the above figures are correct AND it makes, at least some,sense....couldn't think of an easier way to explain....Tony (S.)?????? Bottom line the BS3998 indicates that 'ordinarily' one should not remove more than 1/3rd of the foliage bearing material in any one hit and neither should any pruning wound size exceed 1/3rd of the parent branch or stem. IF however you need to deviate from this 'recommendation' then you need to have clear justification for so doing, i.e structural tree issues / subsidence mitigation / 'young' tree (high vitality). The next BS3998 seminars (£50...+VAT) are 6th & 7th Sept. at Stoneleigh Park (Warwickshire, just south of Coventry) and Capel Manor (Enfield, N. London) respectively. See Overview - Arboricultural Association for further info. Hope to see you there. Cheers all..n sorry yer still 'ed scratchin'..! Paul

Hi Scotty, thanks for clarifying that. In terms of 'taking weight out of the tree', I wonder if crown reduction actually does so to any significant degree and whether it's just the reduction in 'sail area', which is significant, that we interpret as such...hmmm. Cheers.. Paul

Scotty, sorry to ask ('numpty' Teccie) but are the shots 'before and after' or 'after and after' from two differnt perspectives? If it's the former then, in line with BS3998 (2010), it would appear to be at best a 30% volume reduction, approx. equiv. to a 12% linear reduction, of maybe it's a straight forward 30% linear reduction....WHAT???!!! There is a key difference whihc, on accepting BS3998 (2010) as our industry standard, we need to embrace, be clear on, and specify accordingly. SORRY, I've rather 'hi-jacked' your post. Cheers.. Paul In terms of whether it's enough...others, far more knowledgeable and better placed than I will/have advised.

Hi all, hope yer's r well! I have just posted on 'A-N-other' forum running a parallel thread on this issue. BS3998 (2010) 'Table B.1' cites crown reduction in its various guises, and as applied to the whole tree or selected branches, as "Often Appropriate" (the highest level, i.e. * Done mainly for other reasons but of indirect value / ** Occasionally appropriate / ***Often appropriate), for more situations than any other mode of pruning and specifically cautions crown thinning as an alternative. Perhaps with the advent, or rather 'rebirth', of crown reductions by volume rather than radially, resulting in less of the tree crown being removed in any one hit, LPAs may start to look more favourably on applications. As matter of interest do they reduce their own trees, where apropriate of course? Cheers.. Paul

Wouldn't have bothered 'Resistographing' when already condemned BUT instruction to fell, presumably coz suspected extensive decay in butt, and detailed 'VTA' should have indicated all was not well internally. In terms of "just getting on with it" and climbing it, IF anything had gone untoward (unlikley perhaps) AND it was an employee climbing (OR possibly yourself from a personal accident claim perspective) you would probably find it very difficult to defend under the 'Work at Height' hierarchical approach I would suggest even if it wasn't directly related to tree structural condition. In summary: FIRST - ground level work (straight fell was probably an option as campers could have been moved) SECOND - MEWP (could have been used as access available and ground suitably hard etc.) THIRD - climb (most would...BUT! At least here there was no rigging and you were able to work close to the stem whilst removing branches) In terms of monolithing (if such a word) I don;t think it would have stood for long and so removal was probably best option...unless it could have been fenced off maybe....dunno! Cheers.. Paul

Tony, indeed, clarification of what is everything (see attached). I beleive we are entering a period of transition in rolling out this message and I see the BS3998 seminars as part of this process. Realistically I reckong anything upto 18months before we see specs reflecting the intentions of the standard. Thanks for your post. Paul PS THANK YOU to 'Aspect Tree Consultancy' of S. Devon (Dom Scanlon, Jon kiely and Chris Widdicombe for the illustartion AND invalubale input in producing the seminar content!) TreeCrownVolumeIllus.pdf

Tony, I don't beleive the standard seeks to remove the climbers judgement as the person in the top of the tree looking for the best position to prune back to. However under the current regime we see a very wide interpretation of, say, a 30% reduction of 20m (high) x 10m (wide) tree. Firstly is it: 1. Tree height reduction 2. Tree crown radial reduction 3. Tree crown volume reduction ...as these are very different but all are valid as a 'reduction'. Secondly 30% (this is down to the climbers interpretation and can vary widely, hence some more detailed guidance is needed.) 1. Remaining tree = 14m high. 2. Remaining tree = approx. 17m high (taking 'rounded' 10m crown, for instance) 3. Remaining tree = approx. 19m high (taking the BS3998 guidance that a 30% crwon volume reduction equate to approx. 12% radial reduction) The above is a very rushed, and not a well thought out reply, but I hope it serves, at least in part, to illustrate why we need to be more prescriptive, not arguing over a few centimeters here and there, for the benefit of all. We will never be producing for instance an engineering type spec for tree work, as you quite rightly state the standard is a guide, BUT use of terms such as "30% reduction" is 'imprecise and unsatisfactory'...in the words of BS3998 2010. I see this as an opportunity for the industry to get on board and raise the professionalism bar, again to further marginalise the not so professional. I sincerely hope the industry is 'on board' here...and nothing (directly) to do with 'ARB Approval', but whilst you are pruning to this standard you may as well...STOP IT!!! Thanks for your post. Paul

Hi Paul (hope yer well!) Your right "it's not the law"...until it's condition in a TPO consent and then, effectively, it is. Nonetheless, 'love it or lothe it', it is "industry best practice" and ignore it at our peril...or more particularly put "ALL WORK TO BS3998" on our business stationary and then diverge from it kinda misses the point. This is an opportunity to yet again raise the professional standing and status of our industry and further marginalise the 'less scrupulous'. The seminars are useful and at 50 quid a throw (+VAT, sadly!) hopefully within the grasp of most. Next ones are due Tuesday 6th September (LAntra House, Stoneleigh Park nr. Warwick) and Wed. 7th Sept. (CApel Manor) and they'll be on the AA website soon. Regarding further guidance on tree work specs, the arb consulatncy who developed the training course 'Aspect Tree Consultancy' (Devon), and who have a very strong parctical industry background, are working on guidance which we hope will be available soon. Thanks all.. Paul PS SOrry Paul, just picked your post for the subject matter nowt else.

Wow, welcome to the AA shop everyone, real sorry I'm so late to the party but only returned from Justins show late last night. I can't possibly answer all the very valid points and comments raised (thank you) and thansk to Ben for raising the issue. Bottom line I'm not naive enough to think 'ArbACs' get things right all of the time but by having gone through the process of assessment they've demonstarted they know how things should be, AND they can demo getting things right, and (hopefully) they do do things right most of the time. Regarding the issue of vehicles and overloading, simply IF, on the day of assessment, we observe this (usually by seeing a stonking big pile of chip on board and looking at the springs) we will raise the issue and recommend they visit their local weighbride to 'enlighten' themsleves before 'Mr Plod' does and avoid similar overloading in the future. IF however we don't see this we may dicsuss the issue BUT there are other far more important issues that the scheme concerns itself with, not least as there are other authorities (NOT that the AA are an authority but 'figure of speech'...sorry!) far better placed than the AA to deal with such matters. Regarding H&S in general, this is a 'culture' thing that should prevail in any business and it's implentation is a balance, along with everything else a business needs to do...including earn money! The AA website (see Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor PLEASE don't be put off coz it says 'Help bcoming an ArbAC' this applies equally to ALL businesses!) can now help you put a basic H&S document framework in place but the 'culture' is down to you. IMHO the most important part of the H&S system is the site risk assessment, and accompanying method statement if applicable, so this is the part to major on and, in my expereince, it's the part that is often below the standard it needs to be. Potentialy this document alone will avoid accidents and prevent injuries, please don;t overlook it. Sorry, bit of a short respones considering what's gone before and as a parting shot please don't judge the scheme by your previous expereince of working for an ArbAC who perhaps ran overloaded, not to say that's okay by any means, but the scheme and the ethos behind it is about so much more. Thanks all and excuse if I donl;t reply for a couple fo weeks (or so) as I'm takin some time to reintroduce myself to the family and hopefully in sunnier climes. Take care out there and good to see those who I did at the SE show...great British weather prevailed! Cheers.. Paul

Ha ha...hope you're 'good lady' appreciated the outcome too! Cheers Terry, tc! Paul

Firstly, THANK YOU Terry for your balanced and pragmatic view voiced here, it is much appreciated and I'm pleased to learn you found the assessment process useful in improving the business. I alos hope, in the fullness of time, it does prove fruitful for you and you reap financial benefits. (BTW I take it you found your way back to Cirencester safe and well after the 'ARB Show'...bl**dy AA moving the site....a further 1 1/2 miles away!!!) Secondly I'm most frustrated to learn of another LA TO who has declined the opportunity to nominate, and help, a good local contractor 'on their way', so to speak, because of concerns of favouritism and preferential treatment. Surely LAs and TOs have duty to promote to their local communities (AND trees) reputable tree care businesses undertaking good quality work if not directly, then indirectly via the AA website...once said contarctors have become ARB Approved of course! IF they feel compromised then they could nominate ALL small businesses they have contact with, perhaps avoiding those they've had to prosecute for TPO breaches of course, and then at least yours would appear 'on the radar' and be in with a chance. Sorry, no solutions here but it is a mad world we live in sometimes...ah well! Cheers all.. Paul

The 4 Ds...is actually 3! DEAD (Should be obvious), DYING (Almost DEAD so equally should be obvious), DANGEROUS (hmmm, remember the presumption you are guilty here until 'YOU' prove yourself innonence...lots of piccies n good arb knowledge.) REMEMBER also under the 'D,D,D' exemption there is an automatic requirement to replacement plant, 1 for 1. Cheers.. Paul PS, sorry almost forgot 'DISEASED' is not included in the 'Ds'. PPS see Sect. 9.3 of the 'blue book' here Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice - Planning, building and the environment - Department for Communities and Local Government PPS Whilst preferred by LPAs you don't need to use the 1APP form for Sect. 211 Notices (AKA Conservation Area Notifications) PPPS I'll go now...bye!!!!

HI Rob, greta to meet you on Tuesday, thanks for your intro! The 'DoC' is principally the tree owners, whoever that might be. However if the tree were to fail, and cause injury.harm.loss etc., then the owner would be potentially entitled to sue the 'last professional' at the site for breach of professional duty (assuming the defect to be the cause of the failure and the fact that failure was 'forseeable' AND bearing in mind the level of evidence required in a civil case would be 'on the balance of probabilities', i.e.51%, rather than as with criminal law of 'beyond reasonable doubt' i.e. 90+%'. Obvioulsy this reply is 'my' interpretation of the prevailing law her and not a legal definitive (sorry, don;t usually caveat commnets but seemed appropriate to do so here.) Hope this helps...at least a little. Paul

VERY handy, be sure to check out the Fungi & Knots Directory too, they're excellent (not that I understand knots these days as no-one seems to bother with a prussik and figure of eight anymore, ha!) Enjoy.. Paul

Hi Terry, Yep, you got it right as whilst a '2010' standard it, effectively, only went live Jan. 2011 as released on 31st December...phew! Hope you're well. Cheers.. Paul

Not an '8 month old' insomaniac but, by my recollection (as a Dad too), a 'selective sleeper'...i.e. selects to sleep when you're at work, ha! Good luck n don't forget the match-sticks (jokin apart take care out there, sleep deprivation is very difficult!) Cheers.. Paul