AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi there, apologies for the delay in replying but I've only just heard back from NPTC. The reply from Frances Hirst (HSE), email: [email protected], is that an NPTC certifciate would be required to work legally in the UK. The advice from Steve Hewitt (NPTC), email: [email protected], is that your previous qualification and experience would count towards 'training', as accreditation for prior learning, but again that the NPTC certificate of competence (CoC) is required. This confirms my understanding of the situation and I do not think they will accept ISA Cert. Arb. as evidence of a national competence award as there is no practical skills assessment involved...but by all means ask. Best regards, and good luck! Paul

Perhaps this should also be reported under RIDDOR as a 'near miss' which could have resulted in a 'major injury'...or worse. If you are able to include further details I will liaise with HSE with a view to informing the wider industry. Please disclose all relevant information that will help your peers and colleagues to avoid a similar occurence. THANK YOU for sharing this and thank goodness nothing serious occured as a result. Take care out there..! Paul

Good luck..!

Single handed chainsaw use...worth the risk? One handed chainsaw use...pros n cons! Sorry, so late, just a couple of thoughts. 'Clutching at Saws' is very funny...just a shame it's tinged with sadness given recent events (that said no idea whether one handed use was a factor!) Cheers.. Paul

Yup, and CS36 was cross-cutting whihc is now included in CS30.2 (I think.) CS41 is 'Undertake Sectional Felling Operations' and includes the use of climbing irons and lowering ropes, i.e. a rigging system. IF your ticket is much more than 5 years old I would strongly rceommend an update. Not only to meet the HSE recs. for update trainig requirements BUT because so much has changed with avialable technologies and techniques. In this regard ensure your 'training provider' is well versed in advanced, modern rigging systems and has a grasp of the recent(ish) HSE research outcomes. Cheers all.. Paul

HI 'Harmony Arb', I think (aghhh, dangerous territory!) that the proposal is, the AA Tech Cert as was (and this title may change to 'Arb QCF level 4'), will become a level 4 qualification available as either 'Certificate' or 'Diploma' based on the number of notional hours of study undertaken. The RFS Prof Dip, as was, will become the 'Arb QCF level 6' (I think), so will still be at a higher level. SIMPLES eh?! Not sure why all this is changing, I think in part to give more recognition at level 2 perhpas, but see Further guide to qualifications and careers in arboriculture for further info. Good luck..! Cheers.. Paul PS Again as I understand it, this does not mean if you have a current level 3 Tech Cert it will aoutomaticlaly be accelerated to 'level 4', additional study will be required to achive this...I think...."MR Dowson, where are you???"

Don't forget to have a look at the HSE riging research findings at RR668: Evaluation of current rigging and dismantling practices used in arboriculture A bit heavy going in parts but can be scan read n revisited with some good piccies to emphasise some do's n dont's! Be careful out there..! Paul

Hi DJM, I'm sure you'll get many good contacts from here, and probably more local to you, but you could also check out the following link for 'ARB' accredited contractors in your area: Directory of Tree Surgeons - Arboricultural Association Good luck, and hope the job goes well! Paul (I manage the scheme for the Association)

Thank YOU for the opportunity to comment, always happy to do so. Cheers 'High Scale' n have good weekend. Paul

Look at it from another angle, if anything untoward happened (even if not realted to the poor condition of the tree, nonetheless it would be scrutinised), could you defend having climbed it...did you have a written method statement or a justification on your risk assessment for so doing...is it defensible? I'm NOT saying the tree couldn't be climbed, nor indeed am I saying it can be, but the justification for so doing is down to you as the 'competent' person considering the WaH Regs and the requirement for adequate planning / organisation and supervision. Also what about 'aerial rescue', is there adequate options/strength of branches for that to be undertaken...God forbid. See the WaH Policy for TW Ops Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor for further reading and considerations. Also you have mentioned rigging, which is probably a good thing...that you haven't mentioned it hopefully means you don't intend to...I would 'suggest'. Others are better placed than I to offer their opinions and justifications, either way but I certainly would be concerned if we were presented with that situation on an 'ArbAC' assessment. It would certainly have to be a very nice, calm day and with a very carefully considered approach, ideally documented in a method statement or at least on the site risk assessment (again see above link for advice on both + templates) and a very competent and expereinced arborist involved...and no rigging. Even then I'd still be concerned! Take care out there..! Paul

Have a look here maybe Forestry Journal Sorry if no good. Paul

In my mind the most important thing here would be securing 'tree friendly' tenants, otherwise the tree will come under increasing pressure for pruning and maybe removal. Re-deadwood, leave stubs in situ for the beasties as never really drops out anyway. Re-SBD, when does a frequent unforseeable act become forseeable, in other words the frequency of unexpected branch failures needs to be closely monitored and recorded, i.e. so you can defedn the INfrequency claim if challenged. Crackin tree...wished I stil climbed when I see such beauties! Cheers.. Paul

All these H&S accreditation schemes 'open doors', i.e. gives you the opportunity to tender for works, usually at the LA (Local Authority) / commercial sector level etc. as part of the pre qualification process. As you say no gaurantee of work tho, that comes down to 'pounds/shillings n pence', but hopefully gives further opportunities. Increasingly 'ARB Approved Contractor' is being seen, in addition to CHAS (which we currently DUAL AWARD) and SAFEcontractor (with whom we are currently 'in discussions' to acheive the same 'deemed to satisfy' arrangement), is being seen as the 'competence' benchmark for tree work contracts. This was echoed by seevral contractors attending our 'ArbAC Prep. Workshop' yesterday. AND don't forget for a small business, i.e. 'up to 5 people' (includes the employer), this is available for less than £500 per year....a 'BARGAIN' with a 'BOGOFF'...can you afford not to be 'ARB Approved'??? (comments on a postcard and with words of more than one syllabus and no f's please, ha!) Cheers all.. Paul

Probably alreday covered this but not time to back track...sorry. NPTC did remove CS33 large trees, I think on basis of lack of availabitity plus (as I understand it BUT haven't done it) the felling etc. techniques aren't that different to CS32. However owing to a representation being made by some large employers that they are concerned they may be deemed to be operating illegally if CS33 if removed before the CS32 assessment isd amended I believe they have (temporarily) reinstated it...or are considering so doing. IF in any doubt I'd check with NPTC direct Tel: +44 (0) 24 7685 7300 Cheers.. Paul PS Regarding 'expereince' being a qualification in it's own right I agree (kinda), when I did my NEBOSH qual. they described competence as a combination of 'Knowledge, Ability, Training and EXPERIENCE'...hence competent 'KATE'...and they did write the last word in capitals to emphasise it's importance, i.e. EXPERIENCE...but of course it has to be the right expereince and good expereince, often a 'rub off' from a good mentor....does that happen much anymore?!!!

The brief regarding tree-care.info is principally promotimng the ISA CA as a 'good' qualification for someone to hold who is undertaking tree work operations including advice....unfortunately it doesn;t help your predicament I'm afraid. In answer to your last question 'Yes' provided you are working under the DIRECT supervison of a competence certificate holder and you are 'in training'...hmmm! Cheers n speak further next week. Paul

I will enquire with NPTC whether there's any opportunity to APL (accredited for prior learning) but because of the regulatory requirement under PUWER 98 (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998) requiring chainsaw certificates of competence I think it will be unlikely to be honest...but I will ask (next week now, hope that's okay!) Operational 'competence' is absolutely the key to safe and proficient chainsaw use BUT the regulators require certification to demonstrate this in the first instance. Speak next week. REgards.. Paul

Hi there, nice to hear you'd like to work in good old 'blighty'..! Forgive my ignorance of how the ISA CA scheme operates in the US but do you have any certification recognising your competence as a chainsaw operator (in particular, as these operations are subject to regulatory controls in the UK) or is it implicit in the qualification? I understand for instance, that in New Zealand they operate a chainsaw competency scheme which is not dis-similar to that of the NPTC system in the UK. What happens here, as I understand it, is that HSE (the Health & Safety Executive, the government dept charged with responsibility for workplace safety AND also the enforcement body) are fairly relaxed about NZ operators with their national scheme evidence operating for upto 12months but theerafter they expect them qualify under the UK recognised system, i.e. NPTC. Once I know more about your situation I can enquire further on your behalf. Regards.. Paul (Paul Smith, Tech. Officer with the Arboricultural Association email direct [email protected])

This is a first.... THANK YOU Sir. Paul

Phewwwww...my 'street cred' lives to fight another day, ha! The FC Research Note on HC Bleeding Canker also mentions this on Lime. Cheers Hama.. Paul

Hama, thank you. I beleive that 'real' learning only occurs when college leavers start to 'touch trees' (thanks to the late, great Dr. Shigo). The trouble then of course is that unless they have a very good mentor their skills either never develop, or do so by trial and error. That's why 'ARBTALK', people like you HIGH SCALE, RUPE and many others, are vital to improving standards bu posting such good examples of completed works...it's just such a shame that this is not 'the norm' across the industry. Thank you all and please keep going! Cheers.. Paul

Thanks again High Scale, I cud do this all day, i.e. critique quality work, another very good job. Presumably the spec was to balance the crown, as the left hand side on viewing is reduced 'heavier' than the right and with a 15-20%, or thereabouts. Knockin on the door of a 9/10 here...well done! Thanks again. Paul PS Have to get back to the day job now but will chekc back later....cheers!

Oh I hate going first...where's Hama or MonkeyD??? It looks very similar of Phytophthora citricola whihc does occur on Limes, albeit far less frequently than HC. Hmmm, hopefully the real experts will now come to my rescue. Cheers.. Paul

High Scale, thank you. As a matter of interest I would pass this on an AAC assessment but with a comment that the height reduction is 'heavier' than the rest of the crown (judged by the size of the rpuning wounds in the center), obvioulsy I haven't seen the spec and if that's waht was intended then fine. Also I would mention a caution when reducing smaller branches back to what are effectively twigs, as secondary growth points, that if they fail, i.e. blow off in high winds, then you're kinda left with seemingly an internodal cut or elongated stub. That said Sycamore (hope my ident is up to the post?!) is difficult to reduce in this respect. All in all, good effort 8/10...well done. Thanks again for posting, that's what I find reassuring about this forum. Gud'on'ya..! Paul

Quote: Originally Posted by TimberCutterDartmoor Wish tree officers and their leaflets were more balanced; around here they hate reductions quoting, epicormic and waste of time etc etc I hear this an awful lot 'up, down and across' the country and whilst I'm certainly not advocating the appeal process, not least as it hits the public purse strings hard, it an available option. However, better to be proactive, rather than reactive, so why not get to togther as a collective group, i.e. many contractors in one LPA area, and make a representation to the Council. To add strength to your argument refer to Table B.1 of the new BS3998 where it cites many situations, including 'to manage light and shade', where crown reduction is considered "often appropriate". Yes, from the LPA point of view crown reduction, involving an overall reduction of the size of the tree, inevitably reduces the associated 'visual amenity' (the key criteria for a TPO) BUT, in many situations, it will likely increase the longevity of the tree and create a more 'harmonious' and 'sustainable' relationship between the owner and the tree.....and save the LPA TO repeated tel complaints and time consumin spurious applications. Further IF the overall objective is to achieve a 30% reduction, which LPA's particularly don't like, why not go for a phased approach of 15% + 15% with a 2 year break in between. You may say the client wouldnn't go for this but if it achieved their overall objective, albiet not straight away, then I think many would. IF you have a forward thinking LPA this could be done as an indivdiual tree management plan and consented in one go. Obvioulsy it would need to be appropriately conditioned, to ensure it was 15+15 3 years later AND a require to notify the LPA 5 working days beforehand etc. etc. BUT I think it could work. Sorry this all sounds a bit "fluffy bunny"...I'm going (GONE!) maddddd!!! Hpe it to be of interest, and use, and gentle negotiations are the way forward. Good luck...keep me posted! Cheers.. Paul. PS As a matter of interest I expected their to be a lower of resistance to TPO apps to reduce trees on the basis of 'light loss' when the 'High Hedges Bill' came in whihc seeks to address the very same issue.

SORRY...ME again! In a nutshell, the reasoon why we include 'crown thinning' is because it's a very good test of a contractors pruning skills competence, still very much at the core of the 'ArbAC' accreditation. Still, we often see 'lions tailing' presented as CTN which is something of a concern. Crown thinning is a recognised pruing operation in BS3998 (and the Euro Tree Pruning Guide, where it also has a diagram!) and often appropriate in many situations related to managing light and shade. The requirement, as a minimum, is to produce 2 examples of crown thinning (as well as 2x crown reductions....and 1x standard tree planting) and the first example MUST be a 'pure' crown thinning ideallyundertaken to a tree with a maiden crown, i.e. not previoulsy worked (except maybe CL'd). IF theerefater, and provided example 1 is a 'pucker' job, the 2nd example is an extension toa crown clean for instance, or a modified thin of branch regrwoth from previous 'heavy reduction', that's fine. ..and it's only once every 4 years* it needs to be demonstarted so please make the effort to impress, perhaps even CTN a tree FOC if none recently available as it may avoid the need for a revisit (incurring additional assessment fees.) *Yes we do now reassess in Yr.3, i.e. 2 years on from approval, AND we do recheck work quality standards BUT whilst the above operations are deemed mandatory as part of a full assessment/reassessment, the interim assessment is not prescriptive, i.e. show us some tree work you've done locally in the last few months. Right, I'm off...thanks for yer time all! Cheers.. Paul