Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

AA Teccie (Paul)

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    3,526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AA Teccie (Paul)

  1. Hi all, The ISA Certified Arborist sits in the current (but defunct) NQF (National Qualifications Framework...being change to the Qualifications and Credits Framework....don't ask...ME!) at 'level 2', as does RFS Cert. Arb. & City & Guilds Arb, i.e. it's generally recognised as a craftsman qualification. The Tech Cert Arb, as with ND Arb, is currently level 3. However there are those who believe, in part because of the strict CPD/CEU requirement, that it should be 'higher' than level 2, or at least unofficially recognised as such in the eyes of an employer. I previously studied the 'study guide', as a working arborist (YES I did once work..properly) and found it a very useful process although I never did the exams...can't remember why tho (that'll be the dementia again!) To be quite honest Hamadryad I'm not sure as to how much benefit this qual will be for you given your desire to enter the world of arb consultancy...stick to your FdSc Arb I'd say (NOT to undermine the ISA Cert Arb, it's a great qual for the progressive arborist, but a case of "horse for courses" I reckon n this one probably won't go the distance for you.) Cheers.. Paul
  2. Lots of good advice so far which is great. A couple of things to add, for info. 1. IF the LPA isn't happy with the 'notified' works, AND they can agree with you an acceptable alternative, they can request you formally withdraw the existing Sect. 211 (the relevant section of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act) notification and resubmit a revised one. As a previous LPA TO I used this as an alternative to TPOing mediocre trees or where the tree wasn't really 'under threat' and hence it wasn't really considered 'expedient' to make a TPO (I believe at least one, and maybe more, Ombudsman appeals have been upheld on this basis.) 2. I'm pretty sure (but stand to be corrected) that, although you can and it's maybe helpful to the LPA, you don't have to use standard form for this purpose, i..e Sect.211 Notice. Obviously though you still need to submit all the relevant information to allow them to arrive at a decision. Finally, whilst it may be correct, I would check before proceeding with the proposed works under an exemption as I'm not sure it actually would be unless it was the Electricty Supply Act...or similar. Cheers.. Paul PS Hope everyone had a good Easter!
  3. N don't foget the ladders...even quicker than 'spikes' over the first 7-8m, getting the groundie to position them n foot them ready for a quick(ish) ascent. Then you can spike on your 'spare set' in the dedicated rescue kit OR make sure you have your own set available as too often on AC assmts., as we require to see a dismantling op, the climber often (sometimes) is using the only available set...W@H is all about forward planning and organisition and this, often combined with the ladders being lashed to the top of the vehicle which is parked at the front of the house and you're working at the bottom of the rear garden = FAIL. Okay the reality may be that 'self rescue' on the adrenilin rush is the most common / effective means of getting down to 'Mother Earth' BUT you have to plan for that occasion when the climber (your colleague and often 'best mate') might not be able to and relies on you for help. Oh yeah, n if you do leave the 'rescue kit' in the locked wagon for security..... PLEASE make sure you, or someone on the ground, has the key!!!! Cheers all.. Paul
  4. Hi, I've always understood 'Daldinia concentrica' (great words, not as good as Meta-sequoia glypto-stroboides tho!) to be principally saprophytic, i.e. living on deadwood, but once very established it can act parasitically, i.e. attack living wood, but only weakly so. I usually treat it as an indicator of underlying decayed wood, particularly on Ash, which is useful as the bark often appears in tact and unaffected. Whether it could be an early sign of Inonotus hispidus activity I don't know but the two things often appear together...could be complete coincidence tho...dunno! There another definitive answer (NOT!) from the AA Teccie...any more questions want unanswering?! Cheers.. Paul
  5. Santacruz...I would suggest/advise that NPTC units ARE a legal requirement under the PUWER (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regs 1998) Reg 9 'Training' of the ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) which states: 192 Portable hand-held chainsaws are dangerous machines which need to be handled with the greatest care. Everyone who uses a chainsaw at work for whatever task must have received adequate training under this regulation. The training should cover: (a) dangers arising from the chainsaw itself; (b) dangers arising from the task for which the chainsaw is to be used; and © the precautions to control these dangers, including relevant legal requirements. 193 Over and above this, due to the significant risks involved, if a chainsaw is to be used on or in a tree, the operator will be expected to hold a certificate of competence or national competence award relevant to the work they undertake. Further, I would hope, the training & assessment associated with the particular units is 'useful' to you as the skilled operator and not just viewed as an 'ar*e coverer' for your employer...although obviously they do fulfil that purpose to. You're right tho no 'Mr Plod' (actually Mr HSE) is gonna lock you up for not having the relevant 'tickets' BUT in the event of an accident/incident it certainly won't help your case if you don't have them. Cheers.. Paul
  6. Done a bit of research on this, namely the dictionary definition: semi•skilled (-skild′) adjective 1. partly skilled 2. of or doing manual work that requires only limited training A skilled worker is any worker who has some special skill, knowledge, or (usually acquired) ability in his work. A skilled worker may have attended a college, university or technical school. Or, a skilled worker may have learned his skills on the job. And then I cheked out the Business Link and ACAS websites for further clarification but got nowhere really so I rang ACAS........................................................n after 10mins of waiting I kinda wished I hadn't as this old boy rambled on and on and on and on (Okay, I know, ME in years to come) but told me nothing really. Wished he's just have said sorry there's no strict definition in an employment context, it's open to intepretation. One thing, yes only 'one', he did say that may be of use is to compare your role and grading with that of your peers, and he pointed out this hold be in the same sectors, i.e. private or publci service etc., and use that to suport your case. Sorry I tried...but failed, boo hoo! Cheers.. Paul
  7. Just re-reading this it struck me that if the CS39 you attained did not include the cutting of vertical sections, as included in the most recent update, then you may wish to consider attainment of CS41 which will/should serve to both address this 'shortfall'(?) AND cover you for dismnatling & rigging practices. As a matter of interest we do insist on this (CS41) for AC status BUT also we need to see a (very) 'competent & proficient' operation up aloft and down below, i.e. both ends of the system. The CS41 would be relevant to the climber not the ground 'rigger', but both must be competent. Lastly CS40 (Pruning) is not insisted upon/mandatory BUT often recommended where pruning standards observed are not compliant with industry good practice. Cheers.. Paul
  8. Hi all, I have sought some clarifications on this topic from my 'good' colleague Simon Richmond (formerly of Lantra Awards) who is better placed than I am to do so and which may be of interest...thank you Simon. Hi Paul Having looked through the thread I think they’ve just about covered it! Key points are: • NPTC CS units provide evidence that an operator has demonstrated basic knowledge and skill in that subject. • They were originally intended to provide independent, verified evidence of ‘adequate training’ as required under HASAWA. • They have always been ‘entry level’ competence certificates and do not provide evidence of ‘proficiency’; this can only come after supervised practice and experience carrying out the task in a wide range of circumstances. Evidence of such experience, and any subsequent updating or refresher training, would be an integral part of any defence to support claims of ‘industrial competence’. • CS 39 was intended to assess the very basic skills of how to start and operate a saw (either top or rear handled) from a rope and harness. The cuts required in the original assessment were designed to ensure the operator could position themselves safely to make simple, accurate step and sink cuts, including hand held sections, and ‘manage the saw in the tree’. • The latest version now also includes vertical sections but is not intended to address any dismantling techniques. • Those who hold CS39 from before the recent change will only be considered competent to carry out the tasks that they were assessed in. • Because there is a specific unit that deals with dismantling (CS41), CS39 would not cover operators to carry out this work. Hope that’s helpful... Simon
  9. It's a fair point, trouble is the 'stats' just aren't available BUT both anecdotally and looking around my local region (and others have concurred here) the 'lions share' of arb companies are 'small', i.e. less than 5, and yes many are one or two. Trouble is, in terms of moving the AA scheme forward, I don't beleive we can have any distinction between companies / firms having less than 5, in a sense it's academic...what's important IMO is recognising the 'less than 5s', whihc we don't really do currently, and addressing this. Hope I've not missed your point? Cheers.. Paul
  10. Gibbon, that's a bit impolite if you don't mind me saying, albeit probably entirely true, but please don't publicise the fact I am a 'GOON' (ha, thanks for the laff...it was a laff right???..ha!) Just to clarify, for everyone, the 2 day assessment 'variation' is offered for very small companies where the AC named manager is also the 'receptionist, office manager, H&S bod, surveyor, fitter/mender, main climber...oh and 'brusherupper'...and chief team maker too! Meaninig the logistics of pulling all elements of the assessment together in one day are nigh on impossible so we spent two separate days, one assessor on each day, to accomodate this. (Hopefully that's right 'Gibbon' as I don't know how you are?) However, 'yes' your (very good) point about ensuring the 'assessment' depth and duration is proportionate to the size of the company, i.e. bigger 'arb' companies (for easy reckonin say more than 10-12 staff, or running 3 or more gangs) will also form part of the considerations. I don't propose to 'water down' the standards at all, AND i) the 'active worksite audit' (dismantle with rigging etc.) + ii) the 'completed works audit (planting, crown reduction & crown thinning) will be 'common' throughout. What I anticipate will change is the depth of documentray evidence required from smaller companies, and therefore existing small ACs at re-assessment (UNLESS they wish to maintain their larger company, i.e. '5 or more staff, if that is beneficila to them) will be (far) less and in-line with, for instance, HSE & CHAS requirements. As an existing AC please give me a call if your concerned and I haven't explained things very well. Obviously anyone else can ring me at any stage with any concerns/confusions. Cheers.. Paul
  11. I too was/am greatly saddened to learn of the loss of one of our colleagues and I can't start to imagine how his family must feel and be coping, or not as the case may be....not that I'm a beleiver really but 'God bless them all' are my sentiments! At some stage, when the hurt has lessened, it may be useful to all, and all's families and loved ones, if there are any lessens to be learned from this tragic incident or 'reminders' of specific things we must not overlook in our every day work. But for now 'thoughts n condolences'! Paul
  12. Hi Hamadryad 'et al', apologies I haven't read the above posts in detail as I'm a bit 'under the cosh' at the moment but here's a few thoughts (not sure they'll meet Rupe's definition of controversial(?) tho...bl**dy boffin!) - MEWPs 'v' climber is a good one already mentioned - Work positioning requirement for 2 'load bearing' anchor points, i.e. W@H Regs. (still not fully resolved although most don't!) - Refresher/update training and requirement to updates old NPTC units 20,21 & 22, i.e. 'yes', refsreer training is required BUT 'new(er)' NPTCs??? - Climbing helmets...do we really need them? - Manual Handling assessments (already mentioned) are they appropriate for our industry - a little unrelated but 'waste carriers licence'...should we have to have them? Sorry, just quick thoughts as I press on...good luck! Paul
  13. All, thank you for your comments and I'm actually really encouraged that they are 'reasoned' and 'constructive' be it 'pro' or 'anti'(?) AC...which is great! I think the time has come for me, or rather the AA, to "put its money where its mouth is", so to speak, and implement the changes I have suggested/proposed, much of which revolves around making the scheme (much) more accessible, and appealing, to smaller contractors such that it is worthwhile and represents 'value for money', that I beleive is the key! So where do we/I go from here, well the balls already started to roll in that I discussed in detail my ideas/thoughts/proposals with Nick (Eden, AA Director) yesterday and he was generally supportive. I now need to formulate a report to go before the Association's Professional Committee, who are, in effect, the 'governinig body' for the AAAC scheme with pertinent recommendations are seek their support. Thereafter AA protocol dictates is shold go to the Board of Trustees for ratification ('rubber stamping') and then we can really set the ball rolling. (I acknowledge you may be frustrated reading this and thinking "what a bl**dy long winded process" and "bureacracy gone mad" BUT the AA is a democratic organisation and due process, which is designed to represent the interest of and protect all, has to be followed.) I anticipate the next stage will be a formal consultation exercise with existing AAACs as 'shareholders', in effect, then review, amend n launch (realistcially this will be 1st Jan. 2011....but that give you all enough time to get all those essential 'mountains of paperwork' in place right?...tee hee...ONLY JOKING!!!) Thanks again 'EVERYBODY' for participating in this and any and all other related threads, your feedback/comments (positive and negative) have really been valuable....tis all just down to me now to deliver...aghhhhh!!!! Cheers all.. Paul
  14. Hi 'Shaw', Not sure about 'means testing' the contractors, doubtless they'd all clear out their accounts fo rthe day...ha! BUT, yes absolutely, we are reviewing the scheme cost to ensure they are proportionate and appropriate dependent upon the size o fthe company and, for the larger companies, turn over. Watch this space...but not just yet! Cheers.. Paul
  15. Hamadryad, you need to have faith and confidence in yourself n your abilities n stop dragging yourself down. Judging by the content of your posts you're clearly ahead of the game when it comes down to arb technical stuff, I've been most impressed (n not just saying that to make you feel better...but if it does 'good'!, I'm saying it coz that's what I think.) Bits of paper are important, to a degree (ha!., forgive the pun!), and thanks to the likes of Myerscough in particular there are many more of them around these days and hence employers expect more BUT, not underminingthe degrees at all, and I sincerely wish I had one, any good employer 'worth their salt' will be looking for the 'knowledge' and not the piece of paper! Seems to me you're sufferin a lack of confidence in your own (very real) abilities and, unfortunately, you may be displaying that through your body language to prospective employers. Be proud of your knowledge and considerable experience, 'head up high' n go for it!!! Take care.. Paul PS If you've already started the FdSc I'd sweat it out ofr the first year at least and then you may be eligible to come away with a 'Foundation Certificate' (level 4) which I've just had sight of for the first time....n very nice too!
  16. 'Shaw', no worries at all, 'rant away' if that's what's needed...I've had much worse on here to date but take it all on the chin as most is done so 'constructively' n that's absolutely fine! Coincidentally we are plannnig to review and revise the scheme this year, in fact we're kinda doing so now, but feedback from 'Arbtalk' has lareday chnaged my views on ceratin things and emphasised further needs on others...it's been 'spot on'! You're absolutely right about the scheme needing to be more financially appealling (particularly for the smaller firms), both in terms of assessment fees AND annual subs and this is something I'm looking very hard at and am positive we can do something good. It also needs to have greater financial appeal in that it allows access to more LA work and this, often referred to as a 'chicken n egg' scenario, will self perpetuate I beleive, i.e. the more ACs = the more recognition = more work = AC is 'the norm'. Those are my aspirations at this stage. Keep the thoughts coming... Cheers.. Paul
  17. This, and others, is really good stuff in recommending treatments to control/eradicate scale insects. Approaching it from a very basic level I was going to suggest donning your Marigolds n wiping them off if that's practicable. Lets us know if anything makes a noticeable difference. I was kinda hoping many insect pest s would be killed off after this hard winter n then someon mentione dthe other day that soem insect pest when dormant can tolerate temps down to -40 or summat silly like that....'well ard eh?!' Cheers all.. Paul
  18. Reet, ere we go (and, again, apologies if it's another example of 'grannies, eggs n sucks!') The requirements for 'signing, lighting and gaurding' (sometimes referred to as SLAG...interestingly!) layouts at roadworks etc. is set out in a 'Code of Practice' booklet (NOT an ACOP in this case but probably as good as)...see [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Safety-Street-Works-Road-Practice/dp/0115519580]Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice: Amazon.co.uk: Transport & Regional Affairs Committee Environment: Books[/ame] Whilst this doesn't cover tree works, and in many instances where tree crown extend across the highway a road closure would be necessary..'yeah right!', it does set out the general principles whihc you need to do your best to comply with. There's an interesting scetion regrading 'minor and mobile works', not quite exempt form signage etc. but a lower level is accepted (apparently) and, for instance, crown lifting over the highway from a mewp may come under this category, see Safety at street works and road works Lastly, in order to set up signs etc. and then check if they're correct you should have relevant qualifcations, i.e. New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 Unit 2 - Operatives & Unit 10 - Supervisor, see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/network/local/streetworks/streetworksqualifications/pdf/517732/ Lastly, Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual is, in effect, an extension/expansion of layouts in the Code of Practice document above and not a regulation in its self. Hope this to be of use BUT fully understand if everyone now dons just a 'hi-viz' n jumps in n out of the hedgerow at the opportune moment. Cheers all.. Paul
  19. Hi 'Shaw', Unfortunately, whilst unofficially HSE are completely in support of the AC scheme and in the event of an accident or incident I believe it would be a big plus point for the contractor concerned, because it's not a regulatory requirement nor a licence requirement issue, similar to 'Gas Safe' (CORGI as was), they won't 'endorse' it. Whilst HSE recognised, it will always remain a 'voluntary' scheme and those who don't see benefits in joining will continue to operate independently and whilst coming on board will give a 'bigger voice' and greater awareness it will always be their choice. Obviously I'm wholly in support of the scheme and believe for all manner of reasons it's the way forward for the industry but actually I would rather contractors have the right to make their own decision to join the scheme, or not, as they do currently based on its credibility and value rather than by being forced so to do by their LAs (but I know this does sometimes happen currently). However, ideally, I would like LAs nationally to recognise the scheme and support and encourage their appointed contractors to join but I envisage 'monitoring and supervising' contarctors, ACs or none ACs, would always be part of their role as they are the engaging client and are 'local' unlike the AA. Cheers.. Paul
  20. See, 'oh yeah of little faith'...I told you I'd come in handy at some stage! Watch out for my next useful post.....in 2011..ha! Jokin apart I will let you's know when I've put summat together for Ts n Cs. Cheers.. Paul
  21. Thanks 'EA' (quite apt here?...sorry!) I acknowledge we need to do more in terms of writing articles and editorials etc. for mags in the public consumption arena and hence the Associations 'Media & Comms.' Committee are charged with that. The leaflets we do are pretty good (I think...hope!) and perhaps we could make those avaliable to you guys at 'the interface', at cost, to further promote the message to the public. The London Tree Officers Assoc. also do a great 'benefits of trees' leaflet at http://www.ltoa.org.uk/docs/tree%20leaflet_ltoa-v04.pdf Cheers.. Paul
  22. 'Shaw', your drive and positiveness(?) is refreshing...thank you. IF the HSE were to officially 'endorse' the scheme then that would carry weight and enough to approach the LA insurers perhaps, but currently they don't (although they do 'recognise' the scheme as an industry benchmark for arb contracting...hence we deliver on their SHAD workshops.) Many / most companies are fulfilling their 'obligations' I would suggest and undertaking safe working practices and producing good quality work etc. BUT not necessarily documenting how and having written policies and procedures to underpin this...hence the 'sticking point' to date and particularly for smaller firms (THIS is a 'must' for us, the AA, to address!) Cheers.. Paul
  23. Hi 'Shaw', thanks for your post! You're right, more ACs will increase awareness and then hopefully the scheme will self-perpetuate, however we first need to ensure the scheme is appropriate to companies of all sizes AND that it has 'value' and represents good value for money. We are currently 'lobbying' LAs, albeit indirectly via the HSE Engaging Arboricultural Contractors SHAD (Safety and Health Awareness Day), and I am currently trying a more direct approach via regional tree officer group meetings (with very variable degrees of success.) However what I would like to do is to run a 'lower key' mini-AA SHAD as a roadshow (NO COMMENTS ABOUT 'CIRCUS n CLOWNS' PLEASE!) around the country to further promote the scheme, not least as we now dual award with CHAS (Contractors Health And Safety assessment scheme, see http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/www.chas.gov.uk)...BUT we need more resources available to do this effectively = we need more ACs, a "chicken n egg" scenario! With regard to lobbying LA insurers I'm not quite sure how we would go about this but I would be concerned this may be viewed as a little 'under-handed' in forcing their arm, so to speak. Increasingly LAs are moving away from their own approved list, perhaps recognising the potential liabilities this might bring, and referring enquirers to other lists, i.e. AAAC scheme, but they often still engage none ACs on their own tree works...interesting. Cheers.. Paul
  24. Trees Are Good - Tree Care Information Leaflets available to the Public Above are 2 starting points, I did look for a NPTC assessemnt schedule but couldn't see one, doubtless others will make good suggestions too! Common problem areas are tree planted too deeply, backfill not consolidated adequately and support systems ineffective or damaging to tree. Cheers.. Paul
  25. Hi 'Bareroots', Great post, great question....but I don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps, simplistically ('MY' middle name), it means putting the tree first, i.e treating the tree as the client, and replacemnet planting on at least a 'one for one' basis. Interestingly(?), 2 years ago we made tree planting a 'compulsary' element of the AC completed works operations, which has been a bit of an 'eye opener' for a seemingly simple skill (that's another story) BUT, primarily, the reason we did this was because we were very mindful of the fact that for another part of the assessment, the 'active worksite', we require to see a tree being removed (usually) and that we had a responsibility to try and counter/compensate for this AND encourage arb contractors to undertake tree planting and active promote this to their clients. I sincerly hope it works. Further, in terms of prunig trees, my view would be taht 'ethical' arb actively promotes the "less is more" and "little but often" approach to tree work BUT how realistic this as I dunno....probably not greatly so! One contractor who recently became AC was extremely keen on the concept of ethical arb and, to a large extent, his justification of this was undertaking crown thinning operations instead of heavy reductions/'topping' etc. Great thread and one I'll watch with interest. Cheers.. Paul

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.