AA Teccie (Paul)

Along with many other reasons that's why this forum is a fantastic asset to the practising arborist AND of course those who are willing to contribute their experiences, good and bad, such that we can all learn from them...thanks! I guess a key question is could I / should I have done anything more to avoid the incident ('near miss') and I find it difficult to think of anything immdiately BUT clearly we are now all aware of the dangers of previously 'pollarded' (AKA 'topped') Eucs all next time we ('okay'...YOU!) anchor into one then load it with 2 people hanging on the rope to test it before beginning your ascent....oh yeah n don't forget the 'hard hat' just before you do so. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Ben, I know I live in a 'H&S ideal' world most of the time, which I acknowledge is not always treribly representatitive of the 'real' world but, in part, I feel that is my role on Arbtalk. Hence, I would reply by saying that the PPE required by an operative is determined by the 'risk assessment' process and this would not determine chainsaw trousers to be required...obviously. That said if it is anticpated that you 'will' require to use the chainsaw on the job at some stage before you descend for a break then I can see some logic in saying start with them on. However if chainsaw work is not anticpated then there should not be any insistence upon wearing them, and, more particularly, where they would increase the risk of heat stress and fatigue whilst working...it's madness! Cheers... Paul

Hi Andy, thanks for the post. Absolutely, one should adopt the 'work programming' approach whereever possible, as you have outlined, thereby avoiding the potentail problem encountered by (arguably) lowering the level of control of one risk to improve the level of another, i.e. Type A's to improved heat stress. I never wear my chainsaw trousers doen the pub...but then I'm not allowed down the pub these days (sounds like someone else might be wearing them....'the trousers'..shhh!) Paul

I can fully understand your stance here, and indeed some companies have adopted that stance as standrd practice, BUT would you be classed as a 'layman' in repsect of your decision otherwise? As a curent trained, qualified and experienced arborist (AKA 'competent') I would suggest you are very well placed to determine the H&S aspects of your decision. The expectation would be that you would do this via a risk assessment route and, in general H&S terms, the longer you use a chainsaw in the tree the greater the exposure and the increased risk of cuts, hence my previous comments about sectioning as opposed to pruning. Conversely, clearly many arborists use Type A's regularly and there is now the opprortunity to defend such, if challenged, using refrenec to the AFAGs. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, jumping the gun a bit here as I have't read all the previous posts. The LG Misc. Provisions Act 1976 (Sect. 23) is a 'discretionery' power, adminstered by the LA rather than HA (but oftne the same organisation) and I have worked for LAs who both enforce it and those who don't. Of those that did it would only be as an absolute last resort and the complainant would need to demonstrate such and the 'danger' would have to be significant and imminent...otherwise sorry it's a neighbourly dispute. Not much help but perhaps a clarification. PAUL

Hi Chris, so sorry to hear of your sitaution that must have been quite a shock and well done for dealing with it (my guess would be insticnt would take over and 'the shock' would set in later.) It does howveer raise a VERY important point regarding 'refresher training' and the fact the HSE promote a min. of annual, regradless of requalifying every 3 years. Soem have said before that refresher trainig for something they do 'day-in-day-out', i.e. tree climbing and using a chainsaw, is madness BUT for something you don't, i.e First Aid administering (or if you do there's something amiss), it makes a lot of sense...coz you just never know! Lastly the other big plug here is 'relevant' training which acknowledges the standard First Aid training at your local community center whilst with a HSE registered provider may actually not address he kind of injuries and incidenst your likley to encounter (says he sincerely hoping not!) Take care out there all and I sincerely hope your Grandad makes a full recovery...best wishes! Paul

I'm afraid not, a min. level 4 qual. is required in the scheme standards but, currently, this is not confined to arb (although if not, adequate arb CPD to level 4 would need be demonstrated.) Further if a member has achieved 'Professional Member' status via the assessed route, to include a portfolio submission (10 of 13 topic areas), to prove competence then this may present an avenue to AA Registered Consultant status. To be honest Tony if my reply on this subject seems a little vague, that's because it probably is as my colleague Guy Watson ([email protected] or tel. 01242 522152) manages the RC scheme and he is best placed to advise. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Ben, To be honest it was something of a 'passing comment' and acknowledged that during a section there is more intense chainsaw use, and hence greater exposure to risk. But to be honest it's down to you guys to determine on a job by job risk assessment and at least there is the mechanism there now to do so formally where as previously there wasn't (in terms of HSE speak.) If company policy dictates Type C's then there's probably litlle you can do excpet take more frequent and longer breaks during hot periods (such as now) to recover and recuperate. Of course that equals reduced production time so that should make 'the bosses' review the policy. Thanks for the post (and to all) and 'stay cool'! Cheers.. Paul

Kretzschmaria...????...aghhhhh!!!! Think it's back to Ustulina now innit....Hamadryad / Monkey 'D'??? Paul

Morning all, hope you're keeping well and enjoying the sunshine ...don't forget the factor 50 tho and poss the Type A's at the heat of the day (remember tho it has to be justified on the RA and probably wouldn't stand up if you're section felling...but poss for pruning using a chainsaw provided you pay extra attention to 'work positioning' AND use hand-saws wherever poss!) Anyway main reason for posting is to say I'm just a tad busy at the moment, both work and home, and unable to commit as much time to the forum as it deserves. Hence if you do reuqire anything from me directly PLEAESE post through the 'AA box' and it'll pop into my email box prompting me....thanks! Joking apart enjoy the sunshine BUT keep those '6packs' covered (mines still theres somewhere just well insulated these days!) Cheers.. Paul

Lantra Awards website?...Lantra Awards UK - Environmental & Land Based Vocational Training Courses Probably 'word of mouth' would be a good one too. Good luck.. Paul

Hi 'arb culture', thanks for the post. The key word, or rather legal term, here is 'reasonable'. Interestingly, as I understand it, in a recent(ish) legal case a judge effectively decreed 'Mrs Miggins' competent to inspect her own trees to a reasonable standard by virtue of seeing them every day and noticing no change in their appearance, form or structure (apparently she was also a keen gardener). IF Mrs Miggins had noticed any changes then she should have referred opinion to someone suitably competent and experienced. The NTSG 'draft' guidance does not seek to undermine the status of the professional here but merely seeks to point out that one does not need to have bundles of quals and experience to spot obvious hazards in the tree, i.e dead branches, broken branches, large fungal brackets etc. etc., just reasonable eyesight and an understanding of what a normal tree looks like....so then you can spot the 'ab'normal tree where problems may occur. It seeks to take a pragmatic and reasonable approach but does not promote 'unqualified' gardeners' (actually many of who are higher qualified 'horticulturally' than we are in 'arb') as capable of undertaking tree 'assessments' as that does require skills, knowledge and expereince to be able to understand the defect, assess its significnace, and determine what, if any, remedial works are required and by when....that in totally is the tree assessment. SORRY for the waffling. Paul

Hi Tony, thanks for the (very interesting) post. Essentially, at this moments in time, provided the company / firm providing the report is that which is the AAAC then 'yes' (I say this as several companies/firms operate consultancy through a separate business OR use a consultancy firm.) Howevere this is (highly) likely NOT to be the case from 1st Jan. 2011 as it is proposed to remove the 'Reports' section from the standards. Principally this is because inclusion of a reports section infers that all AAACs are competent to provide them when, in fact, the majority do not and of those that do we see very few (to be honest we don't have the time with much other 'contracting' related stuff to check.) Also, to some degree, this overlaps with the AARC (Registered Consultants) scheme and 'greys' distinction between the schemes. Hoping this clarifies things and thank you for posting it 'open' but with the AA box where I can readily monitor any discussion that ensues. Cheers.. Paul

As Tony says having the gardener (informally, or maybe even formally to a point) inspect the trees in the first instance may be deemed 'reasonable', this is what the Lantra Awards 'Basic Tree Survey' course covers, essentailly spotting the obvious hazards. The professional comes in thereafter to advise the tree owner about the 'significnace' of what "Ol Barry" has spotted and what (if anything) needs to be done AND by when. Obviously the professional can covers all apsects, including the 'hazrad spotting', if the client requires. In part I think the NTSG is trying to counter the potential implications of the 'Poll v Bartholomew' case which may be interpeted as meaning ALL trees within a targer area require a 'level 2' inpsection, i.e. by a competent professional, as this effecteivly threatened tree populations as some land owners decided it would be better, and cheaper, to fell thier trees to remove 'any' risk, and thereby by any possible liabilities, and be more cost effective as a management approach. Just my thoughts.. Paul

Yeah, but who was working his arm...you're wife I bet! Go hide somewhere safe mate. P.

Hi Tony, The reality is that the assessors, who are all experienced, do indeed 'get a feel' for the company and it's relationship with it's employees, and we do speak to the guys on site but usually this is relating to the ops being undertaken. I acknolwdge this is an important area and one we can place further emphasis on. Thanks for raising it. Paul

IMO the importnat thing is that you still have the 'knowledge', and that's what's really important (AND gud'on'ya for that!), what you need to do now is keep that knowledge going through reading, reasearching, discussing, 'Arb talking' etc. You may no longer have an 'active' qualification but you still have the knowledge! Paul

Hi Tony, Anecdotally, my understadning is that the qualification is not very active at the moment, this may be due to a lck of awareness which your post might address and stimulate enquiries to ISA. However I am very interested in the qualification opportunites at craftsman level, i.e. 2.../3 (which perhaps ISA Cert Arb should be???) for the industry and would be keen to be involved (aghhhh, can't believe I've said that as I've no time to do what I need to now...BUT this is important to the industry) in any proposals you may have. PLease keep me posted. Cheers.. Paul

I was wiht a contractor recently who had purchased a copy at £86 as he understood he needed it in his reference library for his AAAC assmt. (whihc he did) BUT the cheeky blighters didn't even have the decency to send him an original copy...it was a photocopy of the document, not very good at all. (As I understand it) IF you are using it for self-study purposes you can 'copy' the document from your local land based college library, hence it might be worth a trip down memory lane. Paul

Hey Lorry...on with "H&S" stuff eh, I can offer you loads...tee hee! Jokin apart I applaud your positive approach to H&S which, whilst seemingly a pain in the 'proverbial' actually can work to the benefit of a company if the management embrace it and feed that through to the guys...they then have the peace of mind of knowing their employers are genuinely on board with H&S stuff and hence keeping them safe and well to send home at the end of a working day. The other angle of course is that certain aspects of H&S your legally obliged to undertake as part of your 'employers duties' under the Act (HASWA 74, the Health and Safety at Work (etc.) Act 1974,,,but then I'm sure your 'bro' will be up to speed with that. In terms of sources of info for updates / regulation changes etc., I would suggest: 1. HSE website, in general as well as they treework section 2. Business Link website, you can log into the regulatory updates section 3. Arb Info Exchange website (Welcome to the Arboricultural Information Exchange.) which is a valuable source but not terribly active at the moment 4. AA website & newsletter, to a point. We do however post periodic HSE updates directly to AAACs, kinda a benefit of membership. 5. IOSH (Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) website In terms of 'stats' the reality is the HSE don't have accurate figures about industry specific injuries/near misses/fatalities as anything related to chainsaws and trees, including none professionals, gets logged with arb/forstry under the RIDDOR reporting. Not a great scenario and one the HSE are looking to address....sometime! Hope this to be of help...if not post back! Good luck n well done! Paul

Hi Tony, good to hear form you. The answer is 'yes', in theory (and sometimes in practice), the reality is the main opportunity we get to do so is when we undertake the site audit and the opportunities therefore are often limited due to the activities ongoing. This is however something we do place a stronger emphasis on with larger companies particularly where we suspect communication is....'not as it should be'. The reality with smaller companies, particulraly when working towards approval is that the guys are usually well engaged in the process and well aware of whats what, so to speak. Is there anything more specific underlying your question which I haven't really addressed? Cheers.. Paul

Guys, I am watching and listening here. I will caht with Simon 'Risk Assessment' Richmond here but I'm sure he would have taken that into account (Simon is the AA person responsible for organising the show and liaising with the Bathurst Estate). Forgive me but I'm not sure if that Pine was in the car park or in the show, within knoddy's plot, this time but either way I wouldn't have been unduly concerned BUT this conclusion should have dreived from a RA approach. The other issue regarding cars parked within RPZs, the truth is probably we didn't consider that (which isn't good) BUT the soil is very free draining overlying Cotswold limestone and it was rock hard so no, or very little, complaction would occur. Again tho very good point taken on board. Many thanks.. Paul

Great thread, great pictures, great time! Cheers John (sorry ony got to meet you briefly!) and 'all'...well done! Paul

Wondered where I'd left that 'six pack'...your very welcomed guys! Was really great to meet with you both, along with some of the other Arbtalk guys, and put faces to names....hope mine wasn't too shocking for you, ha! I have to say, having had previous involvement with a 'special needs' (apologies of that's not a correct term!) little girl my sister adopted, I think what you guys do (collectively as organisers, doners, and supporters) with the 'Childrens Trust' is truely fantastic...well done to all! Gud'on'yas all. Hope to meet more of you's in the near future. Cheers.. Paul

From my point of view it was great to meet many of you and put a name to faces and 'forum names'....gud'on'yas for taking the time. Thanks for supporting the event and I will personally ensure ALL feedback (thank you) has fair representation at the review meeting. Have a great Sunday all... Paul