AA Teccie (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

Porky...SORRY, n thanks for questionning me! What I'm trying to say is that as your practical skills advance, so should your associated arb knowledge. This will ensure your understanding of what your doing is in line with your ability to do it...WHAT??? Or put another way I would like to see all practising arborist with a minimum RFS Cert Arb etc, or higher, BUT more important (and what we test for AC) is the ability to demonstrate that understanding through speech..."Mrs Miggins you don't want to 'top' your Poplar tree in your garden as it's bad practice and doesn''t accord with industryt standards BECAUSE XYZ and this will mean ABC etc. etc. Paul (needing lessons in effective communication) Smith...not common but popular! Hope that makes (a little more) sense?

Is this 'tree management', in which case it may be questionable (albeit what else could you do?), OR is it (very tall) 'hedge management', in which case maybe you need to do a bit more?...dunno! Not every job fits in the classic BS3998 'et al' camp and, appropriate and suitable, adaptation/modification is part of the professionals role to interpret and apply standards as best possible. IMO the (most important) thing is to educate the client of the consequences/outcomes of the work proposed, then they can make an informed decision over whether to proceed or not, OR to consider the aletrantives you have proposed, again part of the professionals role. Oh yeah, n just to cover your posterior, and in partic if agianst BS3998 'et al'/industry good practice, I'd put it in writing too! (Got a 'lone' builder in at the momenty, eck of a good chap but recently got 'stung' for a job he did where the clinet wanted to cut corners to save money and altho this chap 'told' him what the future problems would be he didn't put it in writing and hence has just had his summer holdiay in Barbados cut short!) Sorry if 'off track/thread'...again! Paul

Sounds the basis for an interesting research project (does Mr Percival partake here?) I can't offer any 'pearls of wisdom' I'm afraid (but then that's probably no surprise) but on reading the threadth my thought immediatly lent towards gentle (air-spade?) excavations along the line of the proposed wall to expose roots and use a 'pier and lintel' (nearly spelt that wrong and refered you to a type of 'pulse) construction to 'bridge' the roots. Then it wouldn't matter if there's any increase in soil bulk density BUT thsi is probably to much work and inappropriate for dry stone walling. The othert thing struck me is tree species, i.e. London PLane can (nearly) bash its way through concrete so a bit of compacted soil along a specific line is 'easy peasy!' There, any other highly techncial questions I can('t) help with? 'D' hat n corner again Paul!!!

Yeah, just read it back, does come over a bit 'corny n overly-sentimental'...but hey, maybe I'm just that kinda guy! (that's the latter NOT former.) paul

Just needs placing on a busy road junction in the middle of the town...heck of a good traffic calmer....'come back Burtolin(?)' Paul

That makes me remember an instance when I was still 'on the tools' (fond memories) too many years ago and a neighbour took inspiration from me pruning nearby trees and decide to become a 'have a go yourself' but mucch to his great pain and my great amusement. He duly placed his ladders against the branch of an extended Cherry tree in his front garden, the right side of the cut (unlike the current TV ad...for summat) and merrily started to cut away. I was most impressed when he placed a step cut on the underside and then started his top cut (obviously he'd been watching the professional ('moi') next door) and it acted as a very efficient jump cut...wow, how good was that (but it quickly got much better from my point of view) as the wieght came off the end of the branch, and he was about half way along its length, the remainder, against whihc his ladder lent AT FULL EXTENSION, duly sprang upwards and......"bl**dy funny it was"! Thankfully he was only about 10ft of the ground and other than a sprained ankle his 'pride' was the most damaged thing. Needless to say as I left the site I popped a business card through his letter box (never heard tho, think he was too embarrassed!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi HighScale, congrats on your LA approval! For info, with the AC scheme we wholly acknowledge the HSE (here he goes...coffee n nap time!) requirement for 'refresher / update' training which specifically comes form the 'Management Regs' ACOP (Approved Code of Practice = the minimum level for legal compliance...broadly speaking) Reg.13(?) - Capabilities and Training, which talks about refersher training on a 'regular' basis and, I think its far to say, this is deemed particlaurly relevant to our industry where 'skilled and competent operatives' are our main controller of risks. This is then further endorsed by HSE at Sect.19 of AFAG 805 Training & Certification (worryingly, if all these references are correct, I din't need to look any of um up...AGHHHHH!!!!!) Anyway, in parctice, we wouldn't accept the old NPTC Units 20,21 & 22 as they miss out of certain key competnec areas included in their up-to-date equivalents (this includes take down of hung up trees and aerial rescue and obviously doesn't refelect updates in techniques and technologies...I know, "grannies, eggs n sucks"...sorry!) Hence we would encourage, we actually require, updates to address these. As several people have indicated perhaps doing the releavnt NPTC test only would suffice here BUT I would also strongly advise obtainments of additional comeptneceis, i.e. CS32 & CS41 in particular AND to do the training for these (more advanced units!) I would also try and make contact with a progressive and dynamic 'training provider', perhaps someone who's up-to-speed with current/modern rigging practices (and aware of the HSE/FC related research) for instance and consider some real 'refrehser / update' training which may not result in a NPTC certificate. The other thing of course, and 'yes' I know it's all well and good me banging on about it, but I would also think about your professioanl CPD moving in line with your advancing skills to ideally keep a parity. Hope this to be of help and not to 'ideally worldy'...AND if you want more (NO!!!!) just let me know. Good luck with it all. Paul

SORRY ALL...don't know what happened but I went in for an 'edit' before posting and it just disappeared...aghhhh...200 lines! What I also meant to include was that we would also give serious consideration to the circumsatnce surrounding the pruning and if, for instance, it was a heavy reduction because of structural defects or subsidence mitigation etc. this may be accpetable (provided it braodly followed the standard principles and practices) BUT we would always require to see at least one 'amenity type', as I refer to it, reduction. I also wanted to say "gudon'ya" to Hamadryad for having the confidence to post the photos to have them, efcetively, scrutinsed by your 'peers' BUT that's how we learn and improve/raise the bar and this way everyone benefits in that process. Again I 'take my hat off' to Arbtalk for facilitating this and you guys/guyesses for collectively contributing = as MonkeyD said recently this is 'THE Tree Community'! Paul

Eventually, I've got the opportunity to contribute AND I've found the thread (100 lines Paul must try harder with computers!) Obvioulsy there's been an awful lot of good contributions to this thread and I've just read the beginning and the end so I'll start by offering an AC assessment/audit of the works presented (BUT I will caveat this by saying whilst the photo's are very good you can never see everything until you've got the example in front of you, which obvioulsy I haven't. That said as well as having the 'example' in front of us on an assessment if there are 'before' and 'after' photo's, importantly taken from exactly (or more or less) the same point, this can be extremely useful and inform the audit process (NEBOSH 'anorak' speak!) Reet, so where do we start on an assessment (I hope this works): 1. Check the auditing criteria: 2.3 Crown reduction (MANDATORY) • appropriate spec (from contractor) • conforms to spec • correct cuts • correct finished result A specific ‘amenity type’ crown reduction operation is to be observed, i.e. 10-15% with the ‘rule of thirds’ applied unless otherwise specified. Accords with current BS3998 and European Tree Pruning Guide. 1.1. Can't really comment on the spec as not available = assumed yes! 1.2 As above in 1.1 1.3 Correct cuts (in terms of position, angle, size, accuracy, cleaness etc.) = again difficult to accurately assess without observation at closer quaters but the only thing I would readily comment on is, as I refer to it, the 'relationship of size' between the 'parent' (or removed) branch and the secondary (or retained) branch, i.e. 'the thirds rule' (meaning, the retained branch is at least 1/3rd the dia. of the removed branch...SORRY, "granny, eggs n sucks" again!) Whilst accepting this is not alwasy possible, Silver Maple is difficult and perhaps Beech to a lesser extent, it would appear from some photo's this hasn't always been achieved. This 'rule', as I refer to it, isn't include in BS3998 but is referred to in the Euorpean Tree Pruning Guide (ETPG), which I think is an excellent 'handbook' for tree pruning BUT very expensive as such..approx. 15 Euros (I think) and, I believe, a generally acknowledged and accepted rule. Whilst BS3998 1989doesn't state it specifically the illustration at Fig.2 supports this and it is included, in text, in the 'draft' BS3998. The BS3998 actually doesn't help tho by saying prune back to a side bud (or branch) which seems to conflict with this principle. Bottom line crown reducing back to 'twigs' often results in them failing and being 'blown off/wind thrown' and, effectively, leaves 'inter-nodal' cuts = deemed porr practice. 1.4 Correct finished result = difficult to say without having more infomration. was the objective to crown reduce maintaining the tree's original natural shape OR was it to reduce to reshape, i.e. to a potentially encourage a slightly difrerent form. Perhaps, with the Beech trees, their natural broad spreading habit has been changed to become more rounded and condensed. The Atlas Cedar ('neck on the line'!) has certainly been reshaped losing its natural form...but then what else can you do with a species with such a distinct form? So what would the outcome of the audit be 'NO' (below standard), 'YES' (at standard) or 'GOOD' (above standard) = YES/GOOD with some advisories offered along the above lines. This post may have missed the point, be irrelevant (hopefully not totally) or be 'on the money', so to speak, but I'm sure I'll find out very soon...gudon'yas! Cheers all.. Paul

If the PTI is with the AA, we'll send you instructions with the joining letter but as people have said its approx. 5 miles south of Coventry and fairly well signed posted off the A46 (BUT not in Gloucestershire!) as NAC. We will consider requests for training anywhere in the country if there's the minimum course numbers requiring it (usually 8no.) Cheers.. Paul PS You'll notice lots of 'Forestry Pruning' around the venue at Lantra House...and 'yes' Debbie (receptionist) and co. are quite nice....people!

Hi 'Hamadryad', Are you referring to the tree potetentially suffering from 'drought stress' during the summer heat and hence best not to prune and stress it further, risking it dying....or is there summat else I've missed? Thanks in anticpation.. Paul

Hi Chris, it isn't really ('significant'), the sap bleed, BUT no educated clients always relate to the tree 'bleeding' and if it has sentimental value this may be hard for the to stomach (sounds mad I know but I've been there.) Perhaps suggest continuing in mid-Summer when trees will 'bleed' much less, if at all, but then you risk the little 'flying things' scupperin the job if they decide to nest. Remeber also, something as an aside n Syccie is always pretty tough, that 'Shigo' would advocate avoiding pruning, in particular reductions, when the buds are swelling as it's a period of high (stored/potential) energy use to activate growth AND pruning has a 'double-whammy' effect in create wounds (requiring more energy use for 'defense') and removal of potnetial photosynthetic material, i.e. leaf supporting twigs and branches. Not always easy to get a workable solution from this, and loadsa pruning happens at this time of year with seemingly little effect, but it's something else to bear in mind. Good luck with it n gudon'ya for seeking advice! Cheersss. Paul

Thanks for the positive reply, much appreciated and as I say I just want poeple to be infomred of our proposals. To be honest, much of the inspiration is coming from you guys and the realisation there is a big 'arb' community our there with the same aim and objectives as we have...we just need to offer a viable route to facilitate it and pull it all together for everyone's benefit (sorry if I again sound like a politician here, and I'm anything but, I just want this industry to come together and move forward collectively, AND we have to listen and act...AND we will). Yup, an extra pair of hands would certainly help but for the time being we just have to do the best we can with what we've got. Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, hope no objections ot me posting here and this is entirely for infomration (but feel a tad nervous in so doing....still, here goes!) The AC scheme consultation talked about having 'core' elemnst for ALL ACs, inc. sectional felling/pruning/planting and then possibly additional 'optional' criteria for more speciliast work inc. veteran tree management etc. Another one was cable work and possibly fruit tree pruning. Not saying this will happen but, as with just about anything at the moment "its' in the melting pot!" Thanks all....gotta dash! Paul

Another interesting point of note is that wilst some 'broadbrush' expectations comethrough here each case seems determind entirley on its own merits and, as I understand it, none so far 'set a precendent' but act to inform only. Good stuff. Paul

Hi John, There's much discussion around this subject as to what could work and how etc. but one thing is absolutely clear in that ACs & RCs will have a, related, but distinctly identifiable logo recognising their achievement. The various memberhsip grades may be addressed as you describe. Thanks for your thoughts, please keep them coming. Paul

"Shhh Hama'd"...I'm teeling the boss it's under duress! Naaa, t'be honest it's been, and continues to be, a real 'eye opener' n Nicks supportin me all the way! Bring it on ! Paul

I'm extremely keen to listen what you say, consider what the standards require, AND reach a compromise to make it work without being over bureaucratic n 'paperwork for paperworks, BUT some is needed. We wanna engage with you (that's not a proposal BTW...ha!) and if weekend's good for you then weekend's good for me....sos a bit late today but 'Mummys Day' etc. n expectations....but apparnetly, apart from BBQing the carrots, mi Sunday lunch was pretty damn good (thanks goodness only once a year!) Cheers 'Skyhuck'.. Paul

Skyhuck.'SWB' & Hama'd, thanks for your posts and discussions. Provision of quotes IS part of the current standards, AND in terms of the tree work specification are a very good indication of knowledge etc. and competnece in terms of BS3998& ETPG (Euro Tree Pruning Guide). Absolutely NOT wanting to create a requirement for uncessary papaerowrk but, in part, provison of a written quote can separate out the 'good guys' form the bad...IN PART! What I would say is 'YES' you should for every job as the text book answer, however, in relaity and particularly with 'repeat customers', if you do it on the strength of a verbal agreement and a gentlemans hand-shake the gudon'ya, and you've probably operated that way for years (as you've said) BUT in the, albeit highly unlikely, event a customer wasn't ahhpy what you'd done was as described AND complained to the AA, then, in the absence of a written quote to base an opinion on, the likleyhood is we would say you have to go back and sort it....if you're happy to 'take that risk' then thats you're decision. A triplicate pad on site, hand written may be a good compromise? Cheers.. Paul