AA Teccie (Paul)

Probably, thanks for that! Didn't realise it was a generic hybrid like Leylandii. Paul

Well, I don't have any photos I'm afraid (as I never remember the camera) but just as a quick contribution I was in the centre of Southampton yesterday and, for the first time ever (AND I've actually never heard of it before), I saw a tree called a 'Sorbopyrus spp.' (can't remember the species name) and whilst largely an unimpressive and uninteresting tree nonetheless a 'CHAMPION' (thought that was the 'wonder horse'!) and labelled as such! Cheers all. Paul

My 'ten penneth'...if I may (frustratingly tho I never seem to get back to the thread to see what further's been said.) Anyway..."reduction by 3-4m" originally permitted = WHAT???...WHY??? Perhaps a CA notif. where tree not deemed worthy of a TPO appen but to have undertaken those works would have severly affected the tree's amenity, albeit limited anyway. In terms of the pruning, IMO, principally owing to the previous management I guess, the crown had developed quite densely ('congested'?) and the combined crown thin (excellent!) and selective crown reduction is a damn good job...well done! In terms of it being 'pointless' I think this view stacks up less where Silver Birch are involved rather than say Lime or Silver Maple and I reckon the client will get a good 3, maybe 5, years of a less imposing tree in the interim. From the tree surgery professionals point of view, provided that was explained to the client, i.e. it's not a permanent fix, and they accepted then do the 'transaction'. Good job Rupe, my previous (very, very limited) mentoring serves you well....tee hee! Cheers.. Paul

Ooops, sorry didn't notice anyone was here as you've been neglecting me recently....awwwww! The answer to the original question is 'Yes', you can become AAAC being a single 'sole trader' utilising sub-contractor labour only AND be a sub-contractor (freelance arborist) yourself. AND further, as an AAAC, you can during peak periods and busy times etc. engage bona fide sub-contractors, i.e. other treework contractors. Indeed we do check your processes for doing so as this is a key CHAS requirement (but we always have anyway but do so more rigorously now.) The essence of the scheme is about 'quality and standards' and at ALL times, regardless of staff changes etc., YOU are responsible! If YOU move on, as the nominated approved manager in effect, then we re-assess the company and your replacement to check they're up-to-scratch. Loopholes?...possibly, to some extent, and very difficult to manage if someone wishes to abuse the system but that's life and shouldn't stop us setting minimum expected standards as a professional industry and to which most will adhere and respect. Cheers all...sorry I was a little late! Paul

I'm really sorry to hear the industry is not supporting you Alex and I sincerely hope someone here can help give you the opporrtunity you deserve...c'mon guys??? I worked the doors, too many years ago, was it more fun than tree climbing?...certainly the old 'Riverside Club' (just outside Southport) had several memeorable moments in my formative years! Enjoy.. Paul

My view of newcomers to the industry, with notbale exceptions and most of whom post here on Arbtalk (hope that gets me out of it!), is that we have many very competent tree climbers AND many very competent climbers / chainsawers BUT few 'competent arborist', i.e. who can climb, use a chainsaw well BUT most imporatntly, when it comes to pruning, know where (and when) to cut...and probably when to lose the noisy cutting thing and go for the old fashioned approach...15" Sandvik yeah!!!! Cheers.. Paul

Exactly, I wholly agree, you have a professional (and probably moral) duty to eductae the client to the error of their ways BUT if they're hell bent on doing that then better you do it safely for them than others who may not...and, afterall, get some return on your time spent with them. This scenario often arises with AC assessment when I pose the question, usually in relation to 'topping a Poplar'. In reply, and as a last resort, I will accept the contractor may undertake the work BUT only after they've fully explained all the consequences to the client and why it doesn't accord with good arb practice AND offer alternatives....ideally then document this in the quote = fair do's! DON'T get me wrong, I'm certainly NOT advocating this is acceptable really, and certainly not as the norm, BUT, on occasion when the quote book is looking a little sparse then you have aliving to earn. Cheers all.. Paul

TRy Kev Moore at the BTS Group who are Norfolk based they may have opportunities. Have to google their number as I don't have it. Good luck..! Paul

Thank you Tony, you pipped me to the post..so to speak. Hope you're keeping well! Paul

Hi Ian, that's exactly my point. We really do need to get to the root of the problem (forgive the pun) as, IMO, wihtout access to a very good mentor it's highly unlikley many 'new/young' arborist, who can clearly climb well as with 'Alderwood', will develop into skilled arborists. Many of the ND Arbs whihc used to include a middle year workplacement no longer do and that's one significant factor in my mind. Cheers.. Paul

Ooops, apologies, you're quite right standards should be upheld....trouble is I do sometimes (over) relax on here when we move away from officialdom! Thanks for the reminder..! Paul

I totally agree on both counts, let's just hope he posts back!

T'be honest my lass had a tough time of it with labour marathons, little b*ggers were obviously too comfortable in there, but that's short lived n soon forgot n then the fun begins....in more ways than one, certainly never a dull moment...ha! Good luck t'yas both..! Paul

Glad to be of assistance 'Sir', n thanks for not getting 'p*ssed off' with me thinking I'm lecturing you...afterall I do little other tahn sit on my big fat *ss these days n guys like you do the real world stuff...not sure I wouldn't bottle it these days! Bl**dy good luck with your forthcomin 'young uns'...double trouble maybe. but that's relativbely short-lived n then double the fun. I've got 2 lads, not twins, but we're great mates n very soon they'll be able to buy me a beer....using my money no doubt, but hey the sentiment counts. Tc..! Paul

Hi Mike, Sorry this sounds like a 'sales' pitch, whilst it is...it isn't meant to be (WOT???!) IF you are engaging an external consultant to 'assist' (A key word) you to develop a H&S management system PLEASE ensure either they understand our industry, and it's peculiarities (many on here eh?..ha, cheeky g*t!), or work with you to understan it. Honest, over the years I've seen H&S policies and procedures with all the 'bells and whilstles' and shiney covers you could hope for, AND paying several hundreds of pounds for, BUT which are actually irrelavnt and inappropriate for arb activities. As an alternative the AA do a H&S PACkage (£45+p&p) which covers most of the major H&S legislative areas you need to address. It's probably our best seller and many small contractors have benefitted from it's use and implementation. There is a free donwload MS on the website at Publications & Merchandise just scroll down the page to find it. Lastly, to complete teh picture there is the risk assessment workshop which is worth considering. I know many think this H&S stuff is a load of nonesense but compliance, and demonstartion of, will become an increasing requirement...sadly, maybe?! Cheers all.. Paul

'By chance' I looked in. I know it's easy to be critcial BUT I'm concerned as to 'why?' things like this are happening...and too often. Dare I say its an 'industry' problem which we need to collectievly resolve. Hence I sincerly hope 'Alderwood' responds. Cheers.. Paul PS Not seen the topped Syccie...but then again is that such a bad things for a Syccie????....oooops!

Hi Alderwood, thanks for the post. As you specified it is a 'height reduction', not all over crown reduction, but it does appear a tad excessive for a drop crotch technique and it doens't quite achieve a natural form. I'm interested to learn more about the training/mentoring etc. you've received, and your interpretation of the works undertaken, as I have concerns that 'the message' is just not getting into certain parts of the training world regarding pruning standards...often than not this involves none commercial/industry based training providers, hmmm. Cheers.. Paul

Must be summat about the air 'up norf' eh?, babies galore...hence I stay daaan sarrrf! Good luck both, hope you're practisin the deep breathin coz ya'll need it when ur missus forces her nails through your hands n seriously questions your parenthood.......n relaxxxxx! Paul

Guess I'm just gonna have to 'Google' then eh?...how sad am I...NO COMMENTS!!! Paul

"Do you have a picture?..........into your world? An image of me...." I'm not under 30 either! N I'm crap at pop trivia so I'm probably completely wrong! Paul

Wearing my 'H&S' hat (NERD!!!) I have to admit to cringing when I saw the title to the post...Beech+Ustulina+rigging = aghhhhh!!! The HSE rigging research (see RR668: Evaluation of current rigging and dismantling practices used in arboriculture) gives every example where Ustulina (Kretzschmaria) appears, on Birch and Ash, a 'RED FLAG' (see p.40 & p.46) which essentially means be (very) careful and consider other means IF it has to be rigged...crane? Whilst the whole document involves serious reading the piccies and illustartions are really good. See also the climbers risk assessment matrix (Fig. 2.5) on p.30 Further section 2.7.1 (p.68) states particular concerns about the effects of UD on tree root structural integrity and seriously questions suitability for rigging, and of course climbing too. Sect. 3.1 "Establish a Safe Strategy", p.73, and p.74 the associated flowchart is also worth a read. SORRY (genuinely), not meaning to pass an opinion nor be critcial here at all, and obvioulsy the job went well and all is okay which is great, BUT this research containing this advice is now available to the industry (albet not in the most user friendly / readable format) and we do need to be aware of it and its implications for our operations. Stay safe all..! Paul

Reet, I'll bow out as it looks like you've got yur quota Johnty. Hope it goes well..! Cheers, Paul

Hi Johnty, When is the course and where? D'ya mind if I mentioned this to the Devon based ACs? By Chapter 8 d'ya mean the NRSWA 1991 'Signing, lighting and gaurding' (Unit 2 or Unit 10)? Cheers.. Paul

Hi Chris, (Very) good question. My advise to enquirers here at the AA is that any, and all, learning opportunities that result in an advancement of your knowledge, be it in arb / business management / marketing / IT or whatever is 'CPD'. However in so far as CPD goes to support either an applictaion for AA memebrship at Tech. level or above OR to meet the mandatory CPD requiremenst of memebrship, a large proportion (50+%?) should be 'related', i.e. arb/forestry/ecology etc. Further many bodies allot CPD hrs, or points, to events/seminars/conferences etc. that they run BUT this should not be assumed, it should be considered (WOT?!!!) If any event has 5 hrs CPD allotted, but actually you only learened new stuff for half of it the you shouold only log half the time (2.5hrs)....an idealism too far maybe?! Hoping this to be of help (a first Mr Smith?..ha!) Apologies for the wrose than ever spellings n grammar...I'm knackered (old age!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, NOT meaning to 'bang' the risk assesment course again....but there are places left if anyone fancies it (what's that about drawing pins and eyes?!) Anyway not primarily the reason for posting. I meet with Matt Southgate today, CHAS (Contractors Health And Safety assessemnt scheme see ww.chas.gov.uk) Business Development Manager, as we now award CHAS registartion status alongside AA Approved Contractor ('YES' yet another 'bl**dy' H&S prequalification scheme BUT this one does open doors and it is, by far, the largest dedicated H&S scheme around.) Reet, (get to it Paul!!!!) As you know we are looking at modifying the current AAAC scheme to make it more acessible to smaller companies and CHAS, to some extent, is leading the way here as they allow a much simpler access route for small companies ('less than 5'). We discussed the detail of the requirements today and, interestingly (need to get out more!) Matt mentioned there is still a requirement to demonstrate 'HOW' a firm assesses risk, not that this necessarily has to be documented as 'less than 5' but it's actually the easiest, and safest, way to achieve it and meet your employers duties. So, to conclude, things are progressing with the review of the AAAC scheme but it looks like some form of written evidence of RA may still be of value. I advocate the 'blank page' approach as a good starting point...hmmm! Cheers all.. Paul