AA Teccie (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

This link also advertises the 'arb' event I'm involved in delivering on March 22nd near Southend...princiaply geared towards clients engaging arb contractors, but hoepfully see you there! (or maybe not now you know I'm there, ha!) Cheers.. Paul PS I'm also at the IOSH SE regional event on 17th March in Kent "he gads about e duz!!!"

The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) & the Town and Country Planning (Trees) REgs. 1999. There is an exemption under the TPO for 'abatement of a nuisance', whihc would apply equally to trees in a Cons. Area, but the nusinace needs to be 'actionable', incurring a direct loss etc. and I'm sure this probably wouldn't be relevant, more particulrly as the tree cannot, in legal terms, be deemed to be casuing a nusiance to its own property (I thnk!) Hence a Sect. 211 notice and await upto 6 weeks, or sooner if LPA says 'no objections', to remove the branch. (IF you have a very nice, understanding TO, as I was, and it involves minimal works whihc don't significantly affeact the amenity or vitality of the tree, and they have empathy, they may allow you to proceed as 'deminimus works'...trouble is that facility don't exist in the legislation, but it's worth asking.) Good luck.. Paul

Hi there, IF you have already undertaken a level 3 course of study in hortic., and have a reasonable understanding of some arb stuff, it might be worth having a word with 'Treelife' about accessing the new level 4 Arb Certificate / Diploma (the former Tech. Cert. Arb.) See Training for further info. Hope you get summat sorted. Paul PS I know that they have previoulsy had students based in Ireland.

Rob, not usre you'd have got inot such good pruning positions from the MEWP...that is what you menat by no ropes yeah?, ha! Paul

Thanks Ian. Under the 'new' regime we will be reassessing far more frequently, effectively 'every other' year, i.e.: Year 1 FULL criteria reassmt. Year 2 (CHAS only, if applicable) Year 3 PART criteria reassmt. Year 4 (CHAS only, if applicable) Cheers.. Paul

HI Ian, The key factor here is that the previoulsy nominated, and approved, named manager is still in place and, I think, they are still operating from the same premises. However, in part in light of the depth of changes but coincidentally they were due anyway, there is a full reassessment schdeuled for said contractor in a couple of months when ALL standards will be rechecked and the position reviewed (I am positive though!) The '2 climber scenario' you mention is a fundamental change that would trigger the requirement for a reassessment to be undertaken. More often the question posed is that of climbers / staff changing where the manager stays the same, in this case a reassessment would not be undertaken as it is the 'manager's' responsibbility to ensure standards are upheld. Hope this answers your question okay. Cheers.. Paul PS Have to go now but will check back tomorrow so please post back if needed...no worries!

Hi Tully, See here Become an ARB Approved Contractor, scroll down to 'Here to Help', and then select the 'technical standards' (blue link button) which will take you to the Standards, a word doc. (attcahed), scroll up then for the summary. Wish this wuz easier to find.. Good luck. Cheers.. Paul SchemeStandardsUpto5(v2).doc

DN22 thanks for your post. The ArbAC scheme isn't just about a badge, although we do have a very nice one available for 'less than £500 a year' (ha!, sorry I know that's still a lot of money and yes preparation and maintenance of the supporting, albeit now much smaller scale, systems is alos a cost but view this as an investment, afterall most of it you should be doing anyway but no-one ever checks). The scheme is about setting a national benchmark for arb contractors and helping them achieve for the benefit of all, both those who own trees to get the best care and those who assist them...YOU's! NOT to say good acre isn't avaiblae anyway but how does Mrs Miggins choose? (yes, I know, reputation, word of mouth...and price! BUT wouldn't it be good to add national recognition to that list.) In terms of NPTCs, obvioulsy very importnat, but not the 'be all and end all' as we all know. Interestingly we've occasionally had companies assessed who have all the NPTCs going, and they fail (sorry, get deferred) but equally, in relation to CS41, we often see very competnet rigging operations underatken but no NPTC (we can't, unfortunately, award here until it is obtained.) RE - 'lopping and topping', hoepfully not too often, and in fact soem decline on principle, but in tough economic times 'work is work' and you need to earn a crust, hence the ArbAC may also undertake this work BUT after fully informing the client of the consequences (and in writing on the quote ideally) AND offering better alterantives, i.e. fell and replace with a more suitable species, as the tree has often outgrown the site. 'ARBTALK' is absoultely key to sharing knowledge and information, and supporting each other, (and thansk to STeve and all you guys for making this so succesful) BUT sometimes this needs to be more formalised, evidenced based and specific to your business and that's why Jaime is seeking your views on what you need so hopefully we can then deliver. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Timb, See the sub-contractor section at the bottom of the table at Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor which will (very) soon include the attchaed. ALso don't forget the AFAG leaflets are alos designed for this purpose, i.e. undertaking site audits of a partciulat task or machinery use, that's what the tick boxes in the right hand margins are for and the notes and sign off at the end. The most robust system, I would suggest, would use a combination of the AA generic site inspection alternated with the AFAGs. Hope this is of use. Cheers.. Paul Safety Inspection Record v.3.doc

Hi Ian, thanks for your post and for raising a very good issue (thanks also to Tully for supporting it.) Marketing and awareness of both the AA and the 'ArbAC' scheme, particularly in the domestic sector, is a very big challenge for both the Association and it's members / 'ARB Approved Contractors'. Unlike in the commercial / LA sector the fact we now dual award with the CHAS scheme (and hoepfully soon to do so with SAFEcontractor) has raised awareness and recognition significantly, this means nothing in the 'home owners' world. A medium-long term strategy would be to allow the industry to slowly, or 'fastly', adopt and support the AA & ArbAC such that more and more arborists / contractors made reference to, or displayed logo's of, the Association. Then, I believe, these people would become more aware by simple association, in the same way, I would suggest, that most people are aware of CORGI / Gas Safe...well certainly that's the case with myself. Hence when your prospective client enquired whether 'ArbAC' is a 'Gas Safe' equivalent for tree care, you could have replied by saying yes, in terms of customer care / h&S / work standards and arb knowledge, but it is an industry based scheme, although not regulated by central government like 'Gas Safe' is, it seeks similar objectives and reassures the client. IN terms of "what real weight does the scheme give you?", principally this is about recognition, and accreditation, by a credible industry body that your business is operating in accordnace with industry good practice and regulatory compliance. AS I mentioned elsewhere previoulsy the process of working towards implemneting the standards, and then going through the audit and assessment, improves businesses. Those businesses whihc have a structured and systematic approach to managing H&S are equally likley to do so with other key aspects of businesses management, i.e. finances / marketing / employment stuff etc. and hence make them more robust and 'recession proof'..I believe (and of course less likley to come unstuck if challenged). I wholly agree there are lots of arborist out there doing (very) good work, 'day in / day out', and clearly meeting the work quality standards of the scheme, and, I believe, many would like to have independent approval of such but hold back for reasons unknown. The 'small business' assessment process is very much 'outcome' driven, i.e. competnet and safe work site plus quality tree pruning and planting using well maintained machinery and equipment and with a reasonable level of underpinning knowledge (NOT a formal qualification) and is NOT about deatiled paperwork systems, written policies procedures and documents. Sorry, I'm concious I'm rambling (AGAIN!) so I'll stop and let you post back any more specific comments / concerns. BUT I wholly accept the AA needs to get (much) more savvy when it comes to marketing and promotion. Cheers.. Paul

This looks a great event with good speakers, pity I can't get there as delievring RA training in Oxon. Hope it's well supported...'knowledge' is power remember and these blasted 'P&Ds' are getting ever more difficult to control. Have great day. Paul