AA Teccie (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

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!