AA Teccie (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

With 'knowledge' one can choose to be ignorant, without it tho.....??? Cheers.. Paul

Ola Rigodon, 'buenos dias, como estas hoi'? (sorry that's about as far as I go...sadly!) The requirement stems from the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs. 1998 (PUWER 98) Reg. 8 Training - which states that where a chainsaw is to be used a 'certificate of competence' is required, currently only the NPTC (National Proficiency Test Council, part of City & Guilds group) provides this opportunity. The confusion starts with chippers and grinders where ther are NPTC certs. available but the requirement is for 'adequate training', hence the Lantra Awards Integrated Training and Assessment (ITA) route is often preferred, i.e. same perosn trains AND assesses. Thought the NPTC model did exist in Spain, or at least in Barcelona? Cheers.. Paul

Whilst resulting in the same outcome, I think the issue is the 'CE' marking requirement rather than the competence of the splicer....altho clearly the two things are intrinsically linked. The LOLER ACOP (sorry, Approved Code of Practice, the quasi-legal document whihc gives a minimum interpretation of the regulations) requires all equipment used for lifting to be "suitable and sufficiently strong for the task involved" and thi sis where the 'CE' marking gives evidence of testing and a min. breaking strain etc. With a hand developed splice, whilst we've all used them for years, don't necessarily meet the requirements. Cheers.. Paul

Hi, I would preface thsi by syaing 'speak to your insurer first' but, generally speaking and as I understand it, provided you are not giving written advice (other than in relation to works you are quoting for when this would be normally covered by your PL insurance (MAKE SURE!)) and you are not charging the client then you probably don't need Prof. Indeminty (PI) insurance. We did used to require this from applicant 'ArbACs' but they often couldn't secure it with a provider as they couldn't provide examples of reports (coz they didn't do um) and couldn't give an estimated annual income (coz they weren't gonna do um). Hence 'brick-wall / head / bang"! That said those who did obtain it, PI insurance, AND 'ARbAC' found the opportunities for reports increased and hence often developed that side of the business. Cheers.. Paul

Show is on the Bathurst Estate (Cirencester) BUT different location...'ten rides', haven't seen it yet but good site by all accounts, hope to see you there. Cheers.. Paul

Gud'on'ya Nick, I know you'll find it hugely beneficial...."c'mon guys this is an excellent course, who's gonna join Nick?" REMEMBER "knowledge is power"! Great course, great lecturers (ALL 3), great venue and a great opportunity! Go frit. Paul

Gud'on'ya Bob, pipped me to the 'post' here, if you'll forgive the pun! SUffice to say that in most situations you would expect some level of hand protection, either against cuts and abrasions or for 'warmth'...or both, to be worn but this could be suitable work gloves rather than chainsaw protection gloves. Ringing up, if you do that any more, a large butt could, perhaps, be justifictaion for using chainsaw protection gloves owing to the duration of exposure. Also as others have posted it may be a requirement under the terms of a specific contract, difficult to argue that one....well not for some I'm sure! Cheers all.. Paul PS Check ur generic RAs here as many will probably commit you to wearing chainsaw gloves without you realising!

Hi all, Since I placed the H&S info/templates etc. on the AA website mnay have asked further about the fuller set of generics we produce for commercial arboriculture. These are only available to those attending the AA RA workshops, the next of which is running at Cannington College, Nr Bridgwater, Somerset on Thurs. 14th April (see Risk Assessment for Commercial Arboriculture - Training for further info.) Remember in most H&S situations 'risk assessment' plays a key part and having received specific training will both assist you in complying with relevant legislation AND ensure safer working environments for all. Hope to see you there....go on, you know you want to, ha! Thanks all.. Paul

Rigging from a bucket, in general terms, a 'NO, NO, NO' I would say as regardless of the SWL capacity the potential shock loading effect and unbalancing effect could result in collapse or tipping. BE CAREFUL out there..! Paul

Hi Mesterh, hope you're well. IN H&S the 'reasonable practciable' phrase is a 'cost v benfit' analysis approach, hence the scenario I described above. Bottom line provided you use platforms on dangerous trees, deemed unsafe to climb, and/or trees where there aren't suitable, and strong, anchors (few and far between perhaps) then you're probably doing the minimum to comply in your actions. However what you need to be abale to demnstarte, if challenged (unlikey I know, BUT!) is that you ahve an approcah to work planning the aligns with the W@H Regs., i.e. ground level / MEWP / climb, AND that the reason for not using a MEWP is justified, i.e. 'reasonable practicable' approcah OR becuase it would be more hazardous with increased risk, as is sometimes the case (see th etreework at height document on the AA website I referred to.) IF, I've understood your last comment, I think many are making a valid point, as above, that MEWPs themselves, whilst addressing to some degree the 'risk of falls from height' (because of the collective protective measures, i.e. ALL who step in the bucket are automatically protected), have inherent risks of their own regardless of the work application....WOT????!!!!, sorry! Right I'll go now as I've baffled meself...aghhhh!!!! Cheers, n have a good rest of weekend! Paul

GN 1 'Bats' is available now from Head Office. Please complete and submit the order form below (if it's an urgent purchase ring Head Office tel.01242 522152 with credit/debit card details). THANK YOU and 'happy reading'! Cheers.. Paul PublicatOrderForm-0110[1].pdf

Hey 'Skyhuck', hope you're well. I'm sure your posts will come as music to the ears of "ms660isthebest", and, as a former climber myself (albeit many moons ago...shhh!) I wholly understand your take on it, in particular "use it or lose it" (applied to many things in life!) However things have moved on, particularly since the advent of the W@H Regs, and I was pleased to read your final sentence about you would use one as a last resort...in other words you wouldn't compromise your personal safety. Bottom line, that's what it's about. Take care out there... "Mr not-so-young-as-you-used-to-be"....but still going strong, ha! Cheers, Paul

Hi Rupe, thanks for the question. From a HSE point of view an operative needs to have whatever training, skills and competencies needed to underatke the tasks assigned. IN theory, if a company either hire with an operator OR sub-out MEWP work, then they don't need a MEWP ticket. However, the reality is that most businesses presenting for ArbAC do have someone with a MEWP ticket, beit Lantra Awards / IPAF / CITB or A-N-other. I agree totally with your sentiments about those skilled at both climbing and using MEWPS are best placed to decide 'when and where'. Cheers.. Paul

"ms660isthebest" is a young, very fit and very strong guy...my hand is still recovering form his hand shake. IN addition to his posting he also made the very valid point that if your not climbing on a regular basis your skills and competnece will start to wane...fair comment! However, sorry, but I feel compelled to state the H&S position on this: Basically the work at height regs contain a hierarchy of access for undertaking work at height and the practical application for our industry is 1. Ground level, i.e. straight fell / pole pruners etc. 2. MEWP - has collective protective (meaning all who enter into the bucket are automtcially prevneted from falling from height by the guardrails etc.) AND must be considered ahead of individual protective measures. 3. Tree climbing / work positioning. Bottom line, i order to demonstarte compliance iwht the regs, you must be able to show this is the approach you take to tree work at height as a business (hence that is why the AA risk assessment form set outs his heirarchy). IF use of the MEWP does not meet the 'reasonably practicable' test, in other words if the additional cost is disproportionate to the increase in safety, then it can be factored out, i.e. 300 quid job involving a good tree with good anchors and a routine operation whihc could be safely climbed AND the MEWP would add another 200 quid, that would be deemed disproportionate, i.e. increase in cost doesn;'t achieve corresponding increase in safety. However there may be other factors involvong efficiency measures that dictate a MEWP is the best option. Alternatively it may be the 'risk level' asociated with using a MEWP is above that involved in climbing. Interesting HSE have recentlt reported many accidents involving crush injuries by perosn in MEWPs. Won;t waffle anymore BUT, if you're interested, there is a 'Treework at Height' policy / procedure doc. on the AA web resource at Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor Cheers all.. Paul