AA Teccie (Paul)

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

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

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

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

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!

'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

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

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

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

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

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

'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

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

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

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

Excellent turn of phrase "arsing", and of course wholly intentionally included for our amusement late at night (and early morning in my case)...well done (ha!) I would suggest avoiding use of the word 'waste', as others have indicated, and using a phrase along the lines of "ALL timber and arisings to be removed from site, unless agreed otherwise beforehand, and recycled responsibly and the site to be left clean, tidy and safe"...or words to that effect. BUT, importantly, I would include something in your 'terms and conditions' about any timber value has been taken into account in the price quoted and on acceptance of the contract ownership of such transfers to "the contractor" (YOU!) This, hopefully, avoids a claim to the timber by the tree owner once they see it on the deck and decide they could generate a bit of cash from the local timber merchant/log man. Also I would consider adding something else here to the effect of "whilst all reasonable efforts will be made to remove all 'arisings', woodchip, sawdust, twigs, leaves etc., from the site the nature of these being so small and scattered and the adjacent terrain, i.e. grass, shrub/flower beds, gravel drives/footpaths etc, dictates this is not always possible. Further weather conditions, i.e. rain, snow, wind etc., can hinder the effectivesness of the site clean up." Something else on my list is to produce a standard set of 'Ts & Cs' for arb contracting. Hope this is useful (apologies if not!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, I have seen 'Rigi..' at the base of London Plane on the edge of the 'Serpentine' in Hyde Park pointed out by Mike Turner, Royal Parks Arb Officer. Paul

Sounds like he needs one of your business cards casually slipping into his hand. Live n learn eh?!...oh yeah "n each to their own"...hope he realises that now!

Flip...'head scratchin time'. Kinda, but it can be utilised for 'storage', i.e. starches, which the tree can call on if needed. Paul PS Can't you ask summat sensible like H&S Policies n Risk Assessments etc., I can give you loads of useless information then?....forget this biology nonesense stuff which is really important n what it's all about really!

Hi 'Hamadryad', I guess it's down to the individual to some extent as to what they want/expect from 'individual accreditation'. In your particular case you see 'Fellowship' status as the goal, n "gudon'ya for that!", but others may think differently, be it NPTCs / quals. / membership grades / external awards, i.e. CHAS, AAAC, ISO, the range is very varied and there's summat for all. Perhaps that's another reason why industry is so good to work in as it provides opportunities for all..! All the best.. Paul

Whilst the post is regarding 'wounds' the other important factor to be aware of here is the affects those actions would have on the tree as a structure, i.e. the 'axiom of uniform stress' and potentially raising the lever arm effect on the main stem. If the tree's relatively young with bundles of energy it may rapidly lay down reaction wood and all will be okay, but usually young(er) trees don't have big branches to be removed. Forget the 'Arborex' approach too, not least coz it don't work and it's 'G*d damned awful stuff' n wrecks your gear (said from past experience, and better to keep it there...IN THE PAST!) Paul PS The draft' 3998 talks about, ideally, not creating wounds greater than 400mm dia. (presumably on a mature specimen) and if necessary considering Rupe's approach.

My view would be that the appointing client, even at 'Mrs Miggins' level (and I would suggest the church is probably somewhere above that) needs to satisfy themselves, as much as they reasonably can, that the contractor they've selected is 'up to the job' and has appropriate insurances. Obviously builders don't normally do treework (or worryingly do they?!) so the client would presumably ask the question "can you?", if the answer is 'yes', perhaps ask "how?" and if convinced then they can probably reasonably assume the contractors PL insurance covers those operations. Re-tickets, they've probably got diggers, mini-diggers, larger diggers, dump truck, cement mixer..."we've go the lot luv!" All a bit 'risque' IMO tho! Paul

Reet, Paul 'Sad Git Policy Reading NEBOSH Nurd' here...and 'yes' I do read H&S Policies, Method Satements and Risk Assessments AND Insurance Policies just to top it off...there, beat that you people with lives! I often challenge policies during AC assessments, more particularly now we award CHAS as well, not to be awkard or 'a jobs worth' but because it does matter and done properly it can help you better manage H&S and reduce accident likelihoods and outcomes etc. In so doing (challenging policies) I often get the response well no-one else have ever challenged it in the last 10 years of sending it 'here there and everywhere'...that's because that is a 'jobs worth' asking for it to tick another box on their list, and provided its curent, dated and signed you're sorted! Wouldn't be the first time ever taht I've read alot about asbestos, lead poisoning, scaffold configurations and COSHH assessments for paints and thinners etc. = just be careful who you're paying £850 to produce your policy and make sure they understand your industry and what you do! Jokin apart, for what it worth, we produce a 'H&S Package' (£45+p&p) which contains 'the bones' for a H&S Policy, amongst lots of other good stuff (honest!) Failing that the HSE have a simple policy document at http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/policy-statement.pdf whihc is appropraiet for smaller businesses and there's also a combined Risk Assessment & Policy template at HSE to launch Risk Assessment and Policy Template, 1 September 2009 – Partnership news which may suffice for the office element of the business, i.e.low risk, but unlikley to be deemed suitable and appropriate for the 'sharp end' of what we do. There, bet you're gald I contributed now....NOT (sorweee!!!) Cheers all.. Paul

Lets hope so Targettrees, and to everyone's benefit! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Rob, That's absoultely what I'm aiming for! If, after becoming accredited, the firm wishes to grow to take on bigger contracts (whihc often happens AND which, IMO, is often why standards slip) then obviously at their reassessment this will be disclosed and they will have more to demonstrate. BUT, importantly (AND a point we've missed previously), those who believe "small is beautiful" (AND it often is) can stay so and still not have to produce the 'War n Peace' paperwork...simple (so why did I not see it previously?...I know, I know!!!!) Cheers.. Paul 'Blu-Ray' Smith