AA Teccie (Paul)

Looks like thermal imaging for trees has a different application these days Thermal footage shows burglars caught hiding up a tree after police chase WWW.MSN.COM Shocking thermal imaging footage shows the moment police caught three burglars after two were found hiding in a tree...

Albeit with a strong construction flavor but this/these might be a start for ten.. They're clearly geared for a principle - main - subcontractor arrangement, i.e. bona-fide subcontractor rather than 'labour only' (LOSC) which is generally how you engage a subbie / freelancer but may have some useful stuff. Good luck.. Paul Subcontractor Agreement Template.doc Subcontractor Management Checklist.doc

Option 1 = retain and do nothing (...and find something else to watch when it's windy, not meaning to be flippant here but I really do understand your concerns when watching trees do in storms what they need to survive...and it's had a serious bashing recently and it's still there, seemingly in tact) Option 2 = retain and remove only dead / broken branches (doubtless resultant from the storm they'll be present) Option 3 = remove (particularly if you're considering a heavy reduction as Poplars don't do well with big pruning cuts and will need ongoing maintenance) Obviously the latter option needs very serious consideration because of environmental and wildlife etc. impacts...and check for any Council / Planning restrictions etc. "Just my ten-penneth, I'm sure others will have more / different." Regards, Paul

Norway maple, balsam poplar and.... "starters for 10!"..

At first glance, n because of the large size (relatively,) I'd have suggested Holm Oak (Q. Ilex) .. Paul

...and I'd recommend getting a professional to do the aerial work, i.e. cutting the larger branches off, as, with respect, too many amateurs / DIY'ers do themselves serious harm with chainsaws which can often bite the industry (professionals) on the posterior if the H&S Police get involved and lodge it as an industrial accident. regards, Paul

Hi Timon, I’m okay thanks, hope you’re well too. 1&2 = yes, essentially. In response to your last para, whilst questions will inevitably be asked if only one rope is employed, and presuming a backup line/system wasn’t employed either, hence the fall, it probably depends on training received and directives issued by the employer as to whether they too would be deemed liable. I really can’t comment effectively on a hypothetical issue but I do acknowledge it’s a tricky time to be an employer in the absence of specific guidance, ie TG1. sorry bit of a woolly response here paul

Tbh Matty ‘et al’ we need the redrafted TG1 to better understand what “the practice” will/may look like. Hence “watch this space “ as you will be consulted. Thanks Paul

“Effectively nothing has changed” = not quite but the change (assumes a backup line/system will be in place most of the time, n more so than currently) isn’t as profound as big as previously assumed.

Quite agree...so long as in using the one (rope) it's supplemented by a lanyard / flip-line etc. as appropriate, and 'load-bearing' if there's a risk of cutting the primary line...sound familiar? Thanks for the reference to a warrior Mark, albeit with a clipboard, I cudda thought of much worse Cheers' "Reginald Spartacus"..

Matty, please don't put yourself at risk by employing techniques that are unfamiliar to you or, in your opinion, make the job less safe which may include the use of 2 ropes where considered inappropriate. However, use of a 'back-up line/system', with some exceptions / omissions on short duration works/activities, e.g. changeovers, (to be agreed), will be the 'new' norm including on access...depending how long it takes you to get up there The W@H Reg Schedule 5 (1) section, which includes a requirement for use of a 'back-up line/system', is what HSE will measure against going forward and hence that is the challenge for us as an industry, collectively, but need not be the "2 ropes (to ground) + 2 anchors" we previously thought...although this could be an option. Sorry, just repeating myself now .

Hi Matty, sorry you feel that way and, at the end of the day, it's about legal compliance regardless of individual preferences which have prevailed for many years. In practice, I've already seen working examples of both '2 ropes' (in a very large / broad crowned Cedar...and with x2 climbers on 2 ropes + 2 anchors individually) AND '1 primary line + back-up' (as per Schedule 5 of W@H Regs, i.e. the minimum requirement) employed very effectively. So, please await publication of DRAFT TG1 (Technical Guide 1 - tree climbing and aerial rescue) and you'll have further opportunity to comment...please! Thanks, Paul PS As a matter of interest the HSE are fully aware of equal, if not bigger 'risks', in the industry, e.g. chainsaw cuts / impact injuries from falling branches etc., but their focus has been on 'climbing' incidentally because of the current industry guidance reviews (and accidents too.) They are also very well aware of challenges with the training side of the industry, or more specifically 'consolidation of skills', which is equally an employer responsibility....for another day!

Template Consise Method Statement v1.docx A couple of template examples below dependent upon i) the complexity of the job, and ii) how detailed a document the client wishes to see Method_Statement_Template (2017).doc

Hi Matty, Approved Contractor is an increasingly recognized industry benchmark / standard, available to, AND achievable by, any business (regardless of size.) Hence it can help reassue the client organization in achieving compliance and competence and meeting their "due diligence" responsibilities. If you were an AC you would doubtless think differently and expect the AA to do everything it can to increase use of the scheme / standard (an obvious statement I know but contractor members pay a lot of money annually, albeit "good value" I hope, for the AA to "bang the Approved Contractor drum" where it can. The FC, in general, is a supporter of the AA / AAAC Scheme. Cheers Paul PS As a matter of interest, FC contracts are worded with the "...or equivalent" clause so it may be open to discussion.

Thanks for your post and I agree it is absolutely a step in the right direction. Apologies, there will not be another ICoP consultation as the changes, in effect, place less of a burden on the operator / climber, plus it would further delay the production of the redrafted Technical Guide, i.e. what compliance should look like in practice. As an industry your comments have been most valuable in the AA and the authors "changing tack", and in consultation with IRATA who have been very helpful, regarding the application of the (W@H) regulations. Thank you all. The issue certainly is moving forward and several manufacturers and suppliers were at the event yesterday and challenged with 'researching and developing' equipment to help us so do. Thanks again.. Paul

Morning Matty, Sorry I'm not sure...if Mr Graham's around he's the person to ask about all goings on up north. Your point is correct in that the client, and usually the FC are pretty hot on it, still needs to supervise work activities at the point of service delivery, including checking operator competences and experience, and if they have concerns to flag them up (firstly to the company to reply / address and if continues then to us.) I too have concerns about the sustainability / environmental impact of contractors travelling many miles to work when perhaps there's an opportunity to set up a supply chain thereby avoiding such, ideally AAAC to AAAC Cheers, Paul

Hi Jim, the FC Contract is a bone of contention for several AAACs who are on the framework but have had no work at all in 3-4 years The is significant regional variation on use of / reference to AAAC by the commercial sector and this is often influenced by the nos. locally / regionally so whenever you;re ready to step back into the scheme, and bring a few of the other good eggs along, we'll do what we can to educate the clients of the benefits Thanks for your kind words and "ditto". ATB Paul

Hi Matty, as there is no longer a 'UK & I' Chapter of the ISA no, in that context. However, many previous ISA Committee Members, and doubtless many ISA Certified Arborists, have responded to the consultation for which we are most grateful. Further comments were received from around the world tbh and doubtless other ISA Chapter Reps did respond. Cheers, Paul

Hi Pete, if by 'review' you mean further industry consultation then there is no proposal for such. The main changes relate to the issues in my previous post about definitions and interpretations relating to the W@H regulations and Schedule 5 which actually places less of a burden on industry (not sure that's an appropriate phrase when talking about H&S). Cheers, Paul

The meeting was generally positive and "the realities of the job" and staying commercially viable were highlighted to HSE but they highlighted the number accidents (major injuries and fatalities) which, simplistically, 'top trumped' our stance to some respects. Bottom line it is for the industry to find a solution to the issues cited which meets the principles of the W@H regulations but a very positive move is labelling tree climbing, whether static or moving ropes, or in combination, as 'personal fall protection systems', appropriately, thereby avoiding the further higher level requirements of 'work positioning', a term previously commonly used, and ;rope access' (apologies if this is a bit detailed but it is important on a regulatory level.) To conclude I would say there is "still work to be done" rather than "battles to be had"...another positive! Thanks... Paul

aaaaagggghhhh, kinda. However, the interpretation of the word 'practicable' in this context = wherever possible BUT it does not necessarily mean "2 ropes" as previously thought, although that may be an option in some cases (it is anticipated there will be 'omissions' from the "primary line + backup system" (2 lines) requirement, e.g. change-overs on ascent (ie short duration) but this has yet to be agreed / confirmed with HSE. Hence please keep an open mind...but keep safe first using tried and tested techniques / systems. Cheers, Paul

Hi Jamie, The ICoP is still being revised in light of recent meetings with HSE after feedback from industry. We anticipate the final version will be released in April...2020! This will hopefully coincide with release of the redrafted Technical Guide 1 Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue which will replace the previous AA Guide to Good Climbing Practice. Hope this helps.. Paul

Fair comment Kevin, and thank you...however it is not until more small businesses become Approved that the "greater presence in the public domain" will be achieved (the comparison being 'public domain' awareness of 'GAS SAFE' or 'Fensa' for instance which has largely been achieved by people seeing stickers / logos on vans not by anything GAS SAFE or Fensa have done....and they are much, much larger organisations than we are tbf.) Hope you're well.. Paul

Hi Jamie, I have read the vast majority of posts and I’m very well aware of the many valid issues cited. Thanks Paul

Thank you Will. I can assure you it has been communicated, albeit perhaps not so eloquently. If the opportunity arises, and it is needed, I will endeavour to repeat it. Cheers, Paul