AA Teccie (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

Hiya Bob, thanks for the post. We managed both as I mentioned, one guy revelled in it the other cut loose at lunch sadly (I have spoken since an we came to an acceptable solution for him)...just reminds me of the first PTI (Professional Tree Inspection) course we ran, people came along to that expecting to learn how to survey/inspect trees and the course didn't address their needs BUT absolutely did address others (thankfully the majority!) The course info is at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/TR_AK_course_info-041209.pdf and as you'll see it's an awful lot to get through in a day BUT remember it is a 'signpost' course and a 'whistle stop tour' of the topic areas. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Dave, I hope you're very soon 'HAPPYDaveSmith' as it sound slike you've got all the required character attributes to work well in this industry. I'm sure you don't need me to say BUT DON'T GIVE UP and best of luck! Paul

Hi all, Just a bit (?) of feedback on an inaugural training event we ran last week titled 'Arb Knowledge' which was delivered at Stoneleigh (NAC) by Steve Coombes, external AA trainer, who developed the course in conjunction with Simon Richmond (AA Training Manager) and wrote the (very extensive) associated workbook. The course, labelled as a 'SIGNPOST COURSE', was borne from previous discussions between Steve, myself and others regarding the sometimes lacking arb knowledge required for AC status (remember this is not only about understanding what you are doing to trees, the effects and outcomes etc. but being able to impart that/explain it to the client AND in a way they can understand) and how we could start to address this. This was also coupled by many discussions with firms interested in the approval but concerned their knowledge wasn't 'up-to-the-job' and wanting to know to what extent / level we expected them to be. We would reply by saying a level of knowledge commensurate with a level 3 arb qual, i.e. ND Arb/Tech Cert Arb, BUT without having to actually hold the qual. AND, even if you had, we would still question. This is fine but if you haven't done a 'level 3' then what can you refer to?...hence the course! So how was it? Well, over all, and taking into account a few teething problems and refinements required to the workbooks n associated powerpoint, pretty damn good I think BUT it was an awful lot to cram into a one day course and that's something we're looking at. Sadly one chap was a bit overwhelmed having come 'straight off the tools', so to speak, and without a level 2 qual., i.e. NC Arb / RFS Cert Arb / ISA Cert Arbor, and with very little previous reading of the subject areas, whereas another said it was excellent...just what he needed to 'test' his knowledge levels which were fine in most areas BUT in one or two where he thought he was fine he's a little more to do. The 'signposting' associated with course needs refining too in terms of further direction, i.e. further courses of study (Tech Cert, FdSc, Dip Arb) OR other learning opportunities (poss. further workshops covering topic areas introduced on the course in more detail...dunno?!) for those who don't wish to, can't commit to, or can't afford a full educational course. There are lots of further reading/references referred to in the workbook. IF anyone is interested I would reiterate it is designed as a 'SIGNPOST' course, i.e. it won't give all the answers (there simply isn't time), but it will give you pointers to where, if anywhere, you need to 'up' your knowledge level. With regard to the development of further workshops to compliment/supplement the course...watch this space. Cheers all.. Paul PS Albeit from a specifc need, as we saw it, does the industry need this, is it beneficial/helpful?...any/ALL thoughts welcomed!

Hi 'Scott995', Principally there are 2 main types of insurance you need to consider: 1. Employers Liability (EL) - compulsary, i.e. legally required, if you are employing people (and probably if you should be but choose to engage a freelance 'groundsman' on a regular basis instead.) Essentialy this is required to cover a pay-out to an employee injured whilst working for you. Usually £5million min. but take advice. 2. Public Liability (PL) and usually include 'Products Liability' too - optional BUT strongly recommended and indeed some contracts require it. This is in case, despite your best efforts, the 'proverbial hits the fan' and summat goes wrong with harm or damage being caused. Usually £2million min. but again take advice and ensure adequate cover. There is also Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance available but this is usually the domain of the tree advisors / tree consultants and covers them for giving duff advice, kinda, so prob don't need to worry too much at this stage. The other thing is personal accident cover and motor insurance and......aghhh! Good luck with your new venture! Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'MattyF', cheers for the post! Exactly, the 'horse for courses' approach I mentioned early has to be the way forward where both the financial and resource requirements would be much less than currently (which operates on the HSEs '5 or more employees' basis regardless of the size of the firm.) And 'yes', I wholly acknowledge 'sub-standard' work does occur, hopefully 'the minority', and we need to work harder to address this. That said the more there are doing bl**dy good work then the higher standards will go all round and the 'odd job' will become insignificant (NO EXCUSE tho, it's a pet hate of mine and I'm trying my best to raise the bar and stamp it out...perhaps an ideal too far BUT!) Thanks.. Paul

Rob, thanks for your post...interesting stuff! Just to let you know where 'mi thoughts' are at the moment if I may. Several people have proposed differing levels/grades etc. of accreditation based on varying criteria and, I believe, the underlying 'common factor' is about accesibility to the scheme for smaller contractors, i.e. typically 'less than 5 employees' (including 'regular' freelancers) which sits very nicely with HSE requirements. My 'BIG' concern is that, understandable, 'Class 1, Class 2 or Gold, Silver, of Level 1, Level 2' etc. etc. would be seen by the client as different skills/abilities, hence the top one would always be the best one, when it would be based on 'breadth of compliance areas'...or similar = MASS CONFUSION (potentially.) I would much rather have one accreditaion, i.e. 'Approved Contractor', for all which would carry 'common' skills criteria, i.e. sectional felling/pruning/planting/arb knowledge etc., BUT which had a (much) lower level of documentary evidence requirement for H&S compliance, customer care systems, office procedures etc., the paper stuff! Thereafter, to a large degree, it would be 'horses for courses' (very apt at the mo with Cheltenham...mine's still running!) in that the larger contracts (LAs etc.) requiring a greater financial basis and ISO 9001 etc. would be for the 'bigger companies' AND smaller jobs for the domestic consumers etc. the smaller firms where the larger company overheads would likely price them out. Dunno (altho I believe the picture is getting clearer)...maybe I'm just too 'Betamax' molded?!...wots 'Blu-ray', kinda like 'Stingray?' Cheers.. Paul

HI Targettrees...tahnks for posting back. Think I/we/the AA, need to get the AC scheme right first and then look at other 'access' options...is that okay? (SORRY, you've probably sussed that I'm just trying to 'buy time'...."c'mon man get ur finger owt!") Very interesting thoughts tho and I wholly recognise much of the industry operates on a sub-contractor basis, i..e buying in a man/woman for a day, ...hmmm! Thanks again. Paul

Nooooooo....summat else for me to think about...aghhhhhhhh...ha! Is that not an ISA Certified Arborist, perhaps with current AA membership, dunno? Sorry, gotta dash as 'me n mi boys' are off to footie, we haven't played for about 5 weeks n rarin to go (bin up since 7am, all of us, mi wifes frantic...ha!) Paul

Rushed reply here, n appen I haven't fully read the thread...sorry! 2 quick things: I agree, in general, cellweb etc. is better incorporated in new development and retro-fitting is often not viable. Would the client lift the surface to reveal the offending roots? I've seen a few times a network of smaller (upto25-30mm) surface roots from Pines under tarmac driveways, appen taking advantage of the condensation build up on the underside maybe combined with salts or summat(?) BUT my point is my view, as LPA TO, was that they were not significant and could be removed...and without consent as 'de-minimus' works (in other words I couldn't be bothered going through full process for a few small roots!) trouble is IF tarmc goes back then the problem will undoubtedly reappear down the line....what about a nice 'gravel' driveway Mr Bloggs? Cheers all. Paul

Thanks for posting back! I know 'self-regulation' for the industry isn't the ideal BUT it's the next best thing I feel as, realistically, it's the only option available to us (obviously other than carry on as we are, which is an option but does that, collectively, move us forward?) Enforcement is a key issue, and for 'regulated' industries as the 'regulator' never seems to be in the right place at the right time and is usually underfunded). My view is that the more recognition we can give the 'good guys', and yes I believe that does mean 'a badge', and the more good guys we've got, combined with (massively) increasing awareness of who the 'good guys' are (partic in the domestic sector) AND what 'good practice' is, i.e. why topping/lopping your trees isn't the answer, then that's our best shot = 'enforcement (indirect) through education and awareness at the consumer level'! Dunno, appen I'm 'barking mad' and need to find a different tree BUT I need to do summat, to offer some 'better' opportunity for more 'good guys' to get the recognition they deserve and the industry moved forward. Thanks for reading.. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Freebird, welcome to the industry and you'll get as warm a welcome n good advice here as anywhere. Most people, IMO, enter the industry either directly by managing to secure a 'labouring' role and then train up, NPTCs etc., or do the training first then look for a job...not sure whihc approach is best but, ideally, prob the first one as you probably get more opportunity to consolidate your skills BUT NPTCs etc. are v. expensive for the employer. Gotto dash at the mo unfortunately but more than happy to discuss further, and other topics etc., if you wanna give me a call at the office on Monday (tel. 01242 522152 or 01803 845140). Cheers.. Paul

Danavan, thank you for your post. However, it sounds like we needs to introduce a standard for arborists 'dress code'...."& who the scruffy lot were who were carrying out the work"...ha! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Targettrees, PLEASE don't apologise for sounding 'harsh', we need to hear it as it is and how you see it, otherwise we continue to progress(?) with blinkers on. Having discussed this issue of central government regulation on several occasions with some fairly high ranking people, i.e Peter Annet, it's just not gonna happen. We're not a big enough, nor dangerous enough, industry AND we're not introducing or altering a highly explosive substance INSIDE domestic properties. I would like this too BUT IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN...sorry if I sound pessimistic but I like to think more realistic. I wholly acknowledge your, very valid, argument that otherwise we're just another 'club' BUT surely if we can work together to make that club big enough (be it the AA / ISA / EAC or whatever/whereever you, the industry, feels it will be best represented) this is the 2nd best thing, i.e. self-regulation, and could have the same effect (well, okay perhaps not but I don't see whatelse we can do to dispel the 'rogues' etc. and promote the 'gud uns!') The Gas Safe regsitration, to some extent, is paralleled by the NPTC units whihc are a legal requirement under PUWER (Reg. 9 states this specifically for chainsaws) AND, you know what, there's probably as many if not more 'rogue' Gas Fitters around who aren't GS regsitered....sorry, I'm bletherin on! This issue of the big companies going for it, albeit absoluetly not the case BUT, I have tried to address/suggest how this perception could be overcome BUT, more importnatly, addressed satisfactorily (sorry, don't wanna repeat it coz mi 'pinkies' is aching but please read my previous post.) PLEASE post back your further views in light of my response coz if I'm 'way off the mark' I need to seriously rethink....n quickly! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Rob, thanks for the post n pointers. As David mentioned, n having just checked the NPTC webiste, the pre-requisite for CS34 (Single windblow) is CS32 (Felling medium trees). In terms of AC reqs. we largely follow the HSE guidance in AFAG 805 (Training and Certification) not requring NPTCs for chippers n grinders etc. BUT we do require CS41, sectional felling/dismantling, whihc is sometimes a sticking point...more particularly when someone demonstrates a rigging job really well, safely and competently, but then informs us he doesn't have the ticket = aghhhhh!!!! coz we have to insist on it! Re-AC take on refresher training I've posted that early. If you want/need anything more please let me know. All the best.. Paul PS Hope the 'Mrs Potts' job went well...ha!

Hi David, I'm most interested that you say you had your HSE annual inspection...was that by chance or by invitation? (I'm usually of the opinion that HSE visits/inspections are a little like finding 'rocking horse poo', very rare if ever.) In terms of 'refreshers' perse, Lantra Awards do offer a suite of specific refresher training courses but I'm not sure whether these are available for all NPTC units. Secondly, bespoke (but defensible if challenged) refresher training can be delivered directly by a Lantra Trainer if you have ready access to one. BUT, often we (under the AC scheme) meet resistence to these as it's viewed as repeating the same thing and hence attainment of an additional unit, as you describe, is more appealing, i.e. refresher training + an additional competence skill. We recognise this, provided it is relevant, i.e. CS32 to CS34 or CS39 to CS41, within the AC scheme. Interesting you refer to CS50, whihc is 'new' to me, "Techniques for Dealing With Damaged Trees" and reading the assessment schedule it makes much refernce to rootplate stailisation and severance...hence how much differnt is it to CS34 Windblown tree?....dunno! Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, well by my reckonin 10 days have passed since the last post here so I take it most responses have been made and I'd like to offer a summary and some thoughts, if I may. Firstly THANK YOU to Andy Collins for facilitating this poll AND for also, in your Moderator role, instructing it to be 'constructive' not 'destructive' feedback...much appreciated! Secondly THANK YOU to all who posted, be it negative, positive, associated or indifferent...gauging industry views at the grass-roots level is essential (and 'yes' I wholly acknowledge we haven't done great to date!)...again, much appreciated. Onto the feedback. The 2 main comments relate to: 1. The cost, i.e. too expensive for small companies. 2. We don't need the AA to tell us our job. and I'll mainly comment on these. 1. Simple really, we need to follow the CHAS H&S model here which looks for a much lower level of documentary evidence where firms employ (or engage, i.e. regular sub-contractors/climbers/groundies) 'less than 5 people'. Previously we have always required this working on the basis that as an AC your likley to be approach by LAs / commercial clienst who require a H&S policy / risk assessments / training records etc. etc. so better to have them in place, and 'approved', beforehand. Which is fine BUT not all want to work in these sectors so it 'imposes' an unnecessary burden involving much cost, time and resources to produce and then maintain. Further ('neck on the line here') the level of documentary evidence required on the customer care side could be lower as the reality, at the 'domestic level in partic', is that often this will be to a high level anyway as reputation is everything here and high levels of personal service (careful!) are expected AND delivered. Simialrly the office procedures requirements could be pared down to again recognise the direct service provision offered, i.e. "yes Mrs Miggins, tahnks for your call, I'll pop in on the way home tonight and have a look at your Oak tree...about 6.30pm okay?!" The things that couldn't be/shouldn't be 'pared' down/evidneced to a lesser extent are obsviously the 'active worksite', sectional felling+rigging, and the 'completed works', pruning+planting AND the 'mangers' arb knowledge, i.e. explain to Mrs Miggins WHY she shouldn't 'top' her poplar tree AND what will happen if she does AND what alternatives, with pro's & con's, she should consider...oh yeah AND it's in a Conservation Area...so how long will that take? (NOT the TO view BUT what the 'BlueBook' says, remember you need to best represent your client NOT cater to the whims and peculiarities of the LPA ...but 'yes' you do need to maintain good relations AND be legal!) The upshot of this will hopefully allow for a reduced assessment period, ideally with one assessor, which in turn will reduce cost (and hopefully significantly.) 2. Whilst it may be intrepreted as such we are not here to tell anyone there jobs, we're here to help and advice ALL. the scheme is, and always will be, voluntary (IMO) as central government will never step in and regulate us directly, hence we have to 'self-regulate' and for that we need a benchmark (standards), which if we haven't got right we need to know..PLEASE! The decision, and choice, whether to present yourselves for external assessment will always therefore remain yours and I believe that's right. PLEASE respond further, question, criticise, advise, guide, but I'm keen to keep this 'constructive' AND TO MOVE IT FORWARD! Thanks in anticpation all..! Paul