AA Teccie (Paul)

Apologies if grannies, eggs and sucks as I'm sure may be the case. Having recently been involved in delivering the revised BS3998 seminars, and more particularly the pruning bit, I'd like to contribute the following. The standard promotes no more than 1/3rd of the leaf bearing material to be removed in any one hit and similarly no main/primary branch to be removed that would leave a wound on the stem in excess of 1/3rd...great fraction (AND one I can remember!) Further, in terms of crown lifting, if it's back to the main stem and too many wounds in close proximity can coalesce and decay resulting in reduced strength at that point. Also it urges caution with thinning and again states no more than 30%. In all it promotes a much lighter touch and phased management for excessive works thereby allowing for recovery and replenishment of energy along with biomechaincial adaptation if needed. Sounds to me like "Mr Hama' hijacked the standard, ha! Thanks all.. Paul

Nicely put 'Bumble', hope we can oblige. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Carrickman', More than happy to bring the seminar to the 'Fair Isle' if the demand is there. I will contact the Irish Branch and see what I can sort. 'Watch this space.' Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, thanks for your interest here! The next event is planned for Askham Bryan, York on Wed. 11th May. A further event is proposed for south and/or mid Wales in early July along with another possibility for south Midlands / Oxfordshire. Further sugestions have been for an event at Capel Manor capturing the N. London / Middlesex areas...some how we need to gauge the levels of interest. Would anyone be willing to help and set up a 'POLL' type post for these venues to which members can indicate their location preferences? Thanks all. Paul PS Cost is £50 (+VAT) and the 'ArbAC' stuff is a (very) quick update aimed primarily at small businesses, usually lasting 15-20mins as the last session, and is NOT a hard sell...so no free 'Ouzo' nor promises of 'fun in the sun', sorry, ha! Cheers.. Paul

Possibly...gonna take this thread to the AA Forum if you don't mind so I can be sure to reply to anyone who posts. See you again shortly. Thanks.. Paul

See Land Rover chassis failures | News | Vertikal.net

Hi all, SORRY to come to this one so late and thanks to 'Monkey D' from prompting me. Sorry also for any duplication I may subject you to as I haven't read all the related posts. I think everyone working in the tree care industry has a responsibility to consider, very carefuly, the ecological aspects AND the hazards caused by deadwood etc. and, after so doing, make a professional judgement of what is required on a 'job by job' / 'site by site' basis. My interpretation of the removal of the 'crown clean' term from the standards is that it introduces a principle of retaining deadwood where appropraite and beneficial so to do...again a matter for your professional judgement. The term is a nice catch all thereby avoidng the need to be more specifc and gives some free reign in terms of what we do BUT with the industry moving forward and gaining increased professioanl recognition and status, to the benefit of all, we need to raise the bar and improve our tree work specifications such that trees are dealt with individually. If you still require to undertake 'CC' then this can be done (see sects. 7.3, 7.4, 7.12 & 7.13) but I would avoid using the term and specify these individually. Lastly there are parts of this standard that place a greater onus on us, inc. more time and more thought, but please see this as an opportunity to increase the gap between the tree care professional, who can and understands, and the 'other' person, who cannot. Cheers all and thanks for taking the time to read this post...u feeling sleepy now...oops! Paul

Riggerbear, tahnks for your post. Check back soon for any progress. Hope to see you there..! Cheers. Paul

Scots Pine !...ur very welcomed, thank you for inviting us to such a fantastic part of the world (and an excellent Indian in Perth called Mumzal???...yummy!) Glad you found it useful. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Green Grafter', sorry for delay been 'out n about' for past coupla weeks. 'YES' same person, hope that don't disappoint, ha! Cheers.. Paul

Tommer, sorry about that. No chance of you being able to get to the proposed S. Wales gig in early July, long haul tho!

THANK YOU to those people, in excess of 400, who attended the recent 'BS3998 Roadshow' and for your valuable contributions, questions and comments, which we will endeavour to feedback to BSI. Thank you also to Dominic Scanlon of Aspect Tree Consultancy (Devon), my partner 'on the road' (he was 'Thelma'!), and his collegaues Jon Kiely and Chris Widdicombe for their time in firstly reading and understanding the new standard and then developing and producing the powerpoint presentations used. Mick Boddy, BSI B-213 (which oversee the tree related standards) Chair, commented to the effect that the document had been well interpreted by 'Aspect' and the presentation accuratley reflected the document's content and principles. Mick attended the Leicester event and seemed very happy at the end of the day...thank you Mick and the BS3998 review panel for all your time and hard work here. Should anyone wish to attend the seminar we are running a further day on Wed. 11th May at Askham Bryan in York and possibly a further event in South Wales in July (please check out AA website at Arboricultural Association for further details as they appear.) Many thanks all and hope to see you at Capel over the weekend. Cheers.. Paul

Dom, I would suggest the opposite. Because the nature of our work is very hazardous our perception of risk, because of the levels we find accpetable by virtue of delaing with them on a daily basis, is often flawed. This is also backed up by my frequent observations of arborists undertaking 'risque' practices. Their response is often 'I'm expereinced and have never had an accident' my reply is often 'tis only a matter of time if you carry on that way and no amount of expereince make a chainsaw cut, a crush injury or a fall from height any less painful'. Haven't time to do the thing. Cheers.. Paul

Just a quickie here, a tree owner does not have a legal duty to have their trees inspected by a competnet person generally speaking, only perhaps when it is reasonably expected they should do so, i.e. big old tree with several defects overhanging a busy road junction. Recent case law (sorry can't remeber which one) demonsatrated this when Mrs Miggins, who was a keen gardener, made observations that nothing untoward or different in the appearance of the tree hence the failure of a limb, and resultant damage to 3rd party car, was deemed not forseeable and hence not negligent. The National Tree Safety Group (NTSG, search them) will be issuing guidance very soon I beleive. In meantime have a read of the FC publication below. Good luck Paul PS Too large to upload, search fcpg13

I too vouch for Paul as a very, very nice man (AND modest, ha)....just don't ask my kids to agree and I'm not so sure about the 'wise' reference, unless you're referring to the 3 monkeys?...oops, nothing personal Dave, ha! THANK YOU, much appreciated BUT, more importantly, glad you found the seminars / workshops useful as that's the most important thing. Hope to catch up again soon. Cheers.. Paul PS Thanks also to Tim SCott-Ellis and the Cornwall (Kernow?) Branch for facilitating this event, without their input it wouldn't have happened!

Hama, I think the main distinction in respect of MEWP (formal) training/competence is the 'scissor' type machine as opposed to the 'boom'. Presumbaly the tracked MEWP is a boom type and hence if you have generic training/competnec for this type of machine then you just need to undertake 'familiarisation' training with the hirer / supplier, ideally with soem form of record of such, and away you go. Hope this clarifies, at least a little, and doubtless others will contribute who dleiver MEWP training...PLEASE. Cheers all.. Paul Refraining from saying the 's---y' word but been busy with the BS3998 seminars & HSE?IOSH events.

Hi all, hope you're well! A couple of people have said thye've had problems downlaoding the MS from the AA website...sorry about that and don;t know why it is. Hence I've attcahed it below. Hope it's of use. Cheers.. Paul 2008_Generic_Method_statement.doc

Wuz gonna refer you to p.33 of Lonsdales 'Principles Tree Hazard Assessment & Management'...but as usual pipped at the post by Mr Sorenson...still makes a change from Mr 'Hamadryad'....aghhhhh!!!! (ha) Loadsa problems with this when managing Cheltenahms tree stock previoulsy so we introduced a programme of prem. removal and replacement....usually with Lime (T. cordata) Cheers.. Paul

Tony, APOLOGIES for the delay in replying herebut I'm extremely busy at the moment and the 'work / life' balance is somewhat out of kilter...sorry! Sounds to me like you've done the NPTC Unit CS47 - Chainsaw from MEWP. Hence my take would be you need to ensure you understand the specifics of any machine you hire, i.e. hirers training, as you've already, effcetively, got a CoC, albeit combined with chainsaw use. I will check further though and let you know if any different. What i would sugest tho, IF you have some funds allocated, is consider doing an IPAF/CITB MEWP ticket as these are more readily recognised on construction etc. sites. Cheers.. Paul

BIG 'ooops!', less speed more haste or more hast less speed,,,or whichever way round it is. SORRY ALL, and thank you Rupe, of course it should say "Simply holding a NPTC CS38 is NOT deemed adequate." Cheers.. Paul

Pommie 'ur welcomed'...good show! The guys on site were good, n very competent, and the finished works were to a very good standard too....well done to all concerned! The process is useful and helps improve businesses...just hope we get the opportunity to help more. Looking forward to working with you. Cheers.. Paul (n Reg!)

Ben, time for me to find that bucket of sand I'm afraid, or call NOddy. The ARB show is coming up in a couple of months, or Capel first, hopefully Noddy will be there to explain. Cheers.. Paul

No help to you guys in sunnier climes I'm afraid but here in the UK the requirement under the Work at Height Regs an employer must provide 'adequate' emergnecy contingencies incuding aerial rescue provision. In the HSE AFAG 401/402 guidance, recently revised, they have bolstered the scetion that talks about aerial rescue provision requiring any nominated climber to be qualified AND 'competent', i.e. suitably expereinced and practiced. Simply holding a NPTC CS38 ticket is deemed adequate. That said, unfortunately, when companies oftne present themslevs for 'ARB Approval' this aspect, AND planning/preparation on worksites, is oftne lacking and improvments are required beforre approval. I know it's easier said than done but is it worth risking your neck for? Take care out there..! Paul

I'm sure that Steve Hewitt of NPTC would be most interested in developing something BUT I still think the issue would be the 'CE' business. I'm sure Noddy has addressed this, and indeed achioeved it...or some kind of eqiuvalency. Paul