AA Teccie (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

Just goes to show how very powerful words can be, and as you say it's very clever...but simple! I will make a point of making my kids watch this...thanks for posting. Paul

Absolutely, as I mentioned we also received it, it's important people are aware of issues like this and I applaud HSE for informing us...and indeed those who receive it fro informing others, as we're all in this together n need to look out for one another. I just wondered if it was the same problem or a new one (I was thinking out loud.) Cheers.. Paul

We received a HSE 'heads up' on this earlier....is it the same problem highlighted a couple of months(?) ago and the HSE are just a bit slow OR is it a different problem? Thanks...as always! Paul

Yup, go for it! Keep us posted a things progress as I'm most interested to learn of your experiences (arboriculturally speaking of course!)

Hi all, Firstly thanks to Steve for letting me post this here...thank you! Secondly, I recently ventured back to the homestead in Lancashire to deliver 2 consecutive 'AA Risk Assessment Workshops' (not the 'sexiest' I know but then neither am I so me n the course are well matched!), BUT according to one of our esteemed colleagues, a regular 'Arbtalk' contributor (B*GGER only intro'd himself as he left the room after grilling me, "in the nicest possible way", for most of the day...'fair enough!') the day did offer a 'workable solution' to the dreaded risk assessment requirement. Hence, considering this to be an unofficial 'stamp of approval', I bring to your attention a near future event running on 27th May at Shuttleworth (Bedfordshire). Cost is £180(+VAT) for none AA members, or £150(+VAT) members, and I acknowledge this is a lot of money but when you think it includes a ('workable') risk assessment system which can be readily imported into your business I think it represents good value for money. My colleague, and good friend, Guy Watson will be delivering this workshop. If you are interested please complete a course booking form and submit to Tiffany ([email protected]) Thanks for reading. Paul

Hey 'mtt.tr'...welcome to the industry and as others have said before me "you're in very good hands here with the "CC" bunch ('Cheeky'...but 'Caring'!) More than happy to chat with you directly if you give me a call at the (AA) office. A couple of things tho, Lantra SSC are the sectors skills council (SSC) for the landbased industries and develop 'apprenticeship' opportunities in conjunction with landbased colleges (Capel Manor, Enfield are very active, see Apprenticeships at Capel Manor College) and employers, including including in forestry and arb(oriculture), so it might be worth having a look there (see Lantra - Skills & Training for environmental and land-based sectors) Secondly, generally speaking you need to be 16 to operate a chainsaw but should only do so under the close supervision of an experieneced, competent and ticketed (holder of the relevant, to the operation/task being undertaken, NPTC (National Proficienct Test Council, see NPTC | Home) certificate of competence) operator. Also whoever employs you should have a specific 'young persons' risk assessment taking into account the possible increased associated risk (for those reading this is a requirement under Reg. 19(?) of the MHSWR 1999 to have this in place and appropriate controls identified and implemneted....'nerdy!!!' (moi!)) Good luck, enjoy n take care..! Paul

Yup, to be honest I'm not entirely 'au fait' with the Waste Transfer requiremenst but my understanding is that the Para.21 exemption, involving the 'storage' of woodchip, is a means of avoiding the need to register as a wastre transfer centre requiring a licence. Hence my point that if they allow this then surely that goes some way to acknowledging wood chip isn't really waste but a usuable product.

Just thought of an interesting paradox (don't know if that's the right word, prob not, but like the sound of it) here. That is, if the EA are happy for us to self-declare an exemption for the requirement for a Waste Transfer Licence, i.e. a para. 21 exemption, with regard to storage of woodchip then surely that's an acknowledgement that provider the 'storer' can demonstare they are recycling/re-using the product it is NOT waste....next they view it as a commodity and tax it! Still, just banging ideas around that may support our case when I make it to EA. Cheers.. Paul

Previously produced a generic risk assessment for working with London Plane after visiting a contractor working in London and seeing the effects for the poor guy on the chipper and just about everyone else who was walking down 'The Mall' after visiting Lizzie's place....horrible stuff and left me thinking are these trees really the 'lungs of the city' coz on that day they were the 'lung KILLERS of the city'...not my favourite tree by any means! So, a couple of things: 1. Whereever possible work on them when dormant, preferably, or later in Summer when problem isn't as bad. 2. If not poss. then please ensure any 'dust mask' used are appropriate type to the fine hair dust hazard AND they fit well. I have also seen contractors who are sensitised to LP hairs wearing respirators when chipping. Obvioulsy if work can be done during damp / wet weather, provided it's not too wet to climb (when's that in UK?), that will help too. Lastly I was not aware the susbtance was carcogenic which puts a whole new perespective on things...be careful! Paul

Excellent, thanks for bringing it here where I can monitor it more closely. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT if we can keep comments brief (as poss) and stay on topic I will let them run for a little while and then propose a way forward. Cheers all, have a great weeknd! Paul

ALL, many apologies. I'm afraid I'm a bit of the 'chocolate fireguard' syndrome and thanks to '18 Stoner' for the prompt, albeit it came through a 'PM' whihc is fine but relies on me coming on line and I'm just stupidly busy at the moment (NOT an excuse, but a very genuine explanation!) Next time if you can either 'poke' me via the AA box, which then comes stright into my AA email in-box, or directly [email protected], I'll get back to you quicker...apologies again! I've not got time to read all the posts here but I think it's the issue I raised about contacting the EA and asking them to review their position statement on 'virgin timber', which is exempted to the WCL requirement, to extend this to include 'clean' green woodchip...correct? (I know there's also been talk about haulage and vehicles etc. and that's a potential minefield I'm keen to avoid if at all poss.) Anyway I'm afraid I've done nothing further at this stage but I guess we first need confirmation of excatly what we want, I know this is not to have to purchase a WCL but we need to have a clear justification and reason why, and then how best to present this...electronic peteition, Face book (???...how old are we?, not a clue I'm afraid). I'm happy to front this AND add the AA weight to it but I have to be quite honest with you and say I simply cannot progress this at the moment without assistance. Would anyone, 'in the know', be perpared to get involved with the collating of opinions/petittions etc. to help to move it forward?...PLEASE! I can commit some time to put the existing situation/scenario picture togther and present the justification for change but don't have the time/not sure how best to harness/present the support...please work with me on this one as 'the industry'...thanks! Paul PS I know this sounds a bit pathetic (on my part) but is there anyway of transferring this thread to the AA box, so it keeps banging on my door, OR to start 'afresh' in there? It's just that I'm SH*T at finding my way back to particular threads which are importnat.

Perhaps I'm naive, and un realistic, but I find it quite staggering to hear news like this in this day, age and current H&S driven climate..!'madness'!!! Sincere condolences to the family left behind. Paul

Hi all, Sorry for 'bangin the drum' again but the posting title is worrying me like hell as the Trade Fair/ Arb Show is the 11th & 12th June...NOT 26 & 27th! Cheers n looking forwrad to meeting you there. Paul

Hi Steve(?), Strictly speaking the role of establishing a soil's heave potential is that of a (soils) structural engineer but, generally speaking, the higher the plasticty index meausrement the greater the shrinkage potential and therefore, presumably the greater the heave potential. Other factors to consider are that heave damage is significantly less than subsidence damage, i.e. it occurs less frequently, and it usually only occurs where the tree(s) significantly pre-date the building, hence they are founded on existing dehydrated soils / ground. Further if the properties are relatively new build then they should have been constructed in such a way to take account of eventual tree removal. Nonetheless if they are under a 10yr NHBC gaurantee I guess sooner rather than later might be the way to go....if indeed a risk to the property prevails. Hoping thsi to be of help. Cheers.. Paul