AA Teccie (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

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.

"Unit 30..2 Crosscut and stack small diameter timber using a chainsaw For cross cutting there must be sufficient timber on site for cross cutting and at least one piece of timber must have a diameter of 200-380mm (8”-15”) to accommodate a boring cut to sever log 8. Crosscut timber under guidebar length to a given specification." The above is all taken from the NPTC CS30 Assessment Schedule on theri website. In summary it would indicate that 380mm (15") is the max. size of timber to be cross-cut under a CS30 ticket. However, as we all know and all do, much larger timbers are cut in reality. Consider obtaining CS32 would be my advice which states: "Crosscut stems over guidebar length in diameter to a given specification." Hope this to be of use. Cheers.. Paul

Hmmm, that's not as I understand it. CL are one of the founder members of the 'SSIP' (Safety Schemes in Procurement) organsiation, an initiative started by HSE and CHAS and hence should be deemed to satisfy. I'll make some enquiries. Cheers.. Paul

I reckon so....but perhaps that's no surprise. In reality, as with all accreditations schemes inc. ArbAC (or perhaps not as industry specific and beneficial for a business to check it's compliance/competnece with external audit), I guess its largely driven by client demands. Many large organisation/Government Depts. require CL as a prerequiste to the tendering process, i.e. no have it = no quoting!, and it covers broad range H&S, financials, insurance, Directors etc. As a matter of interest, currently unlike CHAS, CL do not vet/check you H&S docs. they simply 'hang' them on their database for others to see....and check, i.e. satisfy themselves. However IF you are CHAS Accredited then you need only submit your current, valid, certificate. Hope this of interest. Cheers, n good luck. Paul

Coz it's part of my job and I'd get sacked, potentially, if I weren't. Ta fer askin. P.

That's fine ("an old chest freezer"), just don't forget the appropriate signage...."NO FROZEN CHIPS TO BE STORED IN HERE!", ha! It wouldn't be the first time, albeit as a pesticide store. THANK YOU for your support Frank, much appreciated. Cheers.. Paul

Clearly someone's not been reading their new (2010) BS3998 (p.31 sect. 7.10)...probably because it's covered in paint tins! Take my hat off to you tho, painting is one of my many pet hates, so whenever I'm forced to do so by 'Mrs Smith' (NOT AJ) I always make a hash of it....usually take about 5 years for her to forget and ask (TELL ME) again! Sorry...it would be 'topping', an indiscriminate and damaging way of cutting trees...commonly done and sometimes justified AND often the trees (seemingly) happily grow back....aghhhhh!!! Thanks n hope yer finished soon..! Paul Paul

Hi everyone, hope you're well. In light of several recent queries, I just wanted to clarify something about the required level of managers arboricultural technical knowledge for 'ArbAC' status, if I may. Firstly, to confirm this is NOT a failure criteria of the scheme. IF the required knowledge level is not demonstrated at assessment we will agree a CPD plan with the manager concerned and with a realistic timescale, i.e. typically upto 4 years (with a review after 2 years), to coincide with the programmed revisits to the business, and help them achieve it. The knowledge level required is to a minimum of level 2, i.e. C&G Arb / RFS Cert Arb / ISA Cert Arb (level 2...???), BUT it is not the qualification we are looking for, although "that'll do nicely" if you have (and actually we'll still ask questions even if you have BSc Arb or PD Arb), it's the knowledge and the ability to impart that to the assessor(s) as though we were a client that's important. So, an example: "Mrs Miggins (joins us on every assessment) asks you to cut her 'front garden' 70ft Poplar trees down to 30ft as has been done down the road"...how do you deal with that kind of enquiry? Reply..."I would advise Mrs M. that isn't the best option as it doesn't accord with good arboricultural practice because....(answers on a postcard please, ha!)...it is 'topping', whihc is bad practice and which will result in a large wound across the main stem section which will decay and any regrowth stems that then shoot from the sides would be likely to fail at a later date unless the tree was pruned again, typically 5-8 years time. Hence a better option would be to either do 'nowt', light reduction, or fell and replace with something more suitable etc. etc." Now, the big question, would an ArbAC do such work, hmmm, therein lies the dilema (but we do adopt a very pragmatic approach here and wholly acknowledge you have a living to make.) Anyway, apologies for the verbose posting...hope you kept awake. PLEASE contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks for reading..! Paul

Sorry Robert, I missed this one. Craig's a good chap...and I can almost understand what he's saying, tee hee! Send him my best.. Cheers. Paul

Woody, £2 million is the minimum I ahve come across with £1o million being the most. In the main £5million seems to be the average BUT of course you need to ensure you've adequate cover for the type of contracts undertaken. ALSO check the policy exclusions prior to signing the cheque as I frequenty come across height restrictions in relation to aerial ops and tree felling, which the contractor wasn't aware of. Good luck..! Paul

Robert, THANK YOU! I wholly acknowledge the value of the accreditation in the domestic sector is very limited and word of mouth is everything (well done YOU for that.) However my hope, in the fullness of time, is that the ARB Approved Contractor 'badge' becomes synonymous with tree surgery in the same way the CORGI (GAS SAFE) 'badge' is for plumbing/gas installations and therefore has increased value in the domestic sector. Thanks for replying and I hope perhaps some of the H&S information / templates etc. on the website to be of use. Take care out there! Cheers.. Paul

Excellent news 'Johnty', look forward to receiving the app. Increasingly, albeit a little bit begrudgingly (because H&S compliance has always been integral to ACs...but the operational outcome is of more interest), the "deemed to satisfy" arrangement we have with CHAS, thereby allowing us to dual award, has opened dialogue with H&S and procurement people. Finally, if again you fall into the 'small business' category, the amount of cash you stand to lose is less than £500 per year (averaged over the 4 year cycle)...hopefully representing good value for money and 'on the nail' for the value many small contractors said they would put on AA accreditation. Many thanks.. Paul

Robert, consider the benefits it may bring to your business as an 'ARB Approved Contractor', including reduced insurance premiums (reported in many instances), and perhaps it'll make it worth the effort. As a small business, assuming you to be such, the amount of organisation required shouldn't be overburdening. Go on...give it a go, call me if you wanna chat further. Cheers for the post..! Paul

Frank, thanks for the 'thanks' and I hope we can do so (thank you) personally very soon. I believe this now presents a real opportunity for all tree care contractors, regardless of business size, to get accredited and gain the recognition they duly deserve. Cheers.. Paul

Check out FC Forest Research....loads of stuff there! Good luck.. Paul