AA Teccie (Paul)

David thank you. I, and the AA, simply want what we all do in 'good quality tree care' as the norm and a professional service (AKA 'THE Tree Community') undertaken by a united and coherent industry to benefit society, and I believe we are well placed to facilitate this...I do however wholly accept we need to 'up our game' and prove this, as we haven't done that great to date, but give us/me a chance and we will. Best regards.. Paul PS 'Awwww poor wittle pussies...miaowwww!'

SORRY ALL I stand corrected, it is indeed the Japanese Lacquer Tree to which I refer! MORE PHOTOS REQUESTED PLEASE (ideally direct to '[email protected]'!) thanks all..! Paul

Absolutely, sorry I got a bit 'sentimental' in my previous post above. If you want me to do one of my trademark postings on Accident (UNDER)Reporting and (UNDER) Recording just give me the green light....great for insomniacs! Your truely.. Paul

Appen I should start posting in episodes eh?!...'to be continued!' SORRY! Paul

'SWB' you sure you're not a politician?...but then you seem far too honest, so probably not! Again, 'spot on', listening to the clients needs and being mindful of the 'trees' needs = a balanced, and professional, recommendation (even if you do talk yourslef out of a couple of big jobs hoepfully you get others and smaller jobs appen more often). Keep up the good work..! Cheers.. Paul

Thanks for your post 'Hamadryad' and I hope the posts are useful and I hope the wider 'Arbtalk' community get to see at least some of them to give a better angle on where we're coming from. Absolutely spot on about developing a scheme that is accesible to all, and importnatly works for all, to "leave others in the shade"as you say. Many thanks for your regular posts! Paul

Spot on...the phrase "horses for courses" comnes to mind. I'm not saying on closer scrutiny we wouldn't suggest a few things, refinements, but your set up is very typically of a smal contractor...and it clearly works so why change it! Just make sure you've got a 'PAT' test cert for that 'washing machine...or is it the dishwasher...ha! Cheers.. Paul

Take me outside of H&S and the AC scheme etc. and suddenly words fail me (I'm no real 'word-smith' anyway well okay I am the latter...popular not common now) BUT this kinda thread just 'blows me away to be honest'! Again the sense of community, concern, camararderie (spelling?), openess and genuine sincerity for each others wellbeing and safety here on 'Arbtalk' is nothing short of amazin and I'm touched (G*d, I'll have you all blubberin next!) STIFF UPPER LIPS CHAPS...REMEMBER WE'RE HARDY TREE SURGEONS....or "used to be's" (IN MY CASE!) Guddon'ya David n thank you! Paul PS As someone quite rightly points out, and perhaps worth exploring further at some stage to improve our industry image in the eyes of HSE, the stats are contaminated/distorted by 'none' professional related incidents/accidents but nonetheless let it be a lesson to us all never to be complacent...afterall where'd "Arbtalk" be without you/us all...be safe!

Hi 'Gimmer', I deliver on the HSE 'Engaging Arbs' SHAD, aimed at advising/informing clients of their duties and what's involved in checking a H&S 'competent' contractor etc. Whilst I'm more than happy to contribute here it's probably not my input you're looking for...but let me know if different. Cheers.. Paul

Dear 'Omniata', thank you for post and links which are indeed useful. I'm still keen to get actual photos 'in the field', so to speak, as I feel these are likely to better illustrate the 'problem' tree and pictures when dormant would be particularly useful. Anyone able to oblige please email direct '[email protected]'. Many thanks all. Paul

Thanks John, Ur 'toppa the order book!' Cheers.. Paul

No, not as such, although we do have control over what goes in the boxes. 2nd guessing your query we don't have any direct control over where the box appears in the TreeWork section although we would like it to appear at the beginning. Paul

Thanks 'MD', this one does worry me for everyone's sake and the more we can do to psoitively id it, AND include a photo gallery wheerever we can, the better for all. I may see a bit 'OTT' but honestly is was as exactlly as James said just like acid had been poured on the skin...terrible! Cheers.. Paul

Dear all, As you may be aware the HSE, periodically, produce the 'Tree Work News' ebulletin which is avalaible on theior webiste or you can subscribe to it and they'll send direct. The latest edition has just been circulated and reports another injury/incident to an arborsit coming into contact with sap from the Chinese Varnish Tree (Toxicodendron verniciflua) This tree (I saw photo's of the first chap affected and it was bad, very bad!) is one to be avoided or to take very great care with with full PPE and, ideally, working on during the dormant season when the sap isn't so active. BUT, first of all, we need to positively identify it, which isn't that easy (not sure I would readily be able to do so either) HSE did include a photo in a previous 'Arb News' edition see http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/pdf/arboc06.pdf. My plea is to those who do know this tree, and have access to it for photographing purposes (in particular now whilst it's dormant for twig/bud ident), can you please do so and email me direct '[email protected]'. I then propose to approach Chris Skellern of the 'Arb Info Exchange' website, a very valuable on-line arb resource (as this is but with a different focus) to hold a gallery to aid identification for everyone to view. PLEASE HELP if you can. thank you in anticipation Paul PS I apologise if there is a facility here on 'Arbtalk' to host this gallery which I am unaware of, but if so please shout and we can maybe host it there too.

You must be a popular man...please can you empty your 'PM' inbox and make a bit of room for me...ta! SORRY ALL didn't know how else to sort this one! Paul

Thanks for the post 'Mesterh', We produce a 'H&S Package' (£45 +p&p) which is designed to help small companies put some/most of the necessary procedures (paperwork systems etc.) in place in oredr to be able to evidence the raft of legilsation and regulation we, as an industry, need to comply with. Interestingly (REALLY?...Paul needs to get out more!) this is usually only actioned once the company expects to be audited, i.e. AC assessment, before that stage, in particular smaller companies, are often 'compliant/competent' on site, but have no need to demonstaret such atthe documnetray level...even tho this may be helpful. Anyway the H&S package only includes a short introduction to Risk Assessment as this is a key, and very important, area of H&S management and we encourage people to attend a specific one-day RA workshop we deliver whihc includes a RA system that can be readily imported into the company AND it's specific to arb contracting. The reason we don't offer the risk assessment as a freedownload doc. (although there are similiar styled generics on the HSE website see http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/casestudies/pdf/bricklayers.pdf ) nor as an 'off the shelf' product is because we believe it is vitally important the perosn implemnting the system / undertaking the risk assessments fully understands the system through relevant training and is therefore (more) 'competent' so to do (this view is wholly endorsed by HSE). This is absolutely not the AA trying to make money from the industry but we do not, and I frimly believe never should, release the RA methodology without the training. Another view would be it costs £180+VAT (£150+VAT for members) for the course inc. a RA methodology whihc has been 'tried and tested' and is recognised by HSE = good value for money? (I think so!) On this particular point I did deliver some RA training recently to large national landscape/arb contractor as a consequence of an 'Improvement Notice' served by HSE in response to an accident in the company. The 'company' engaged a very well known, and very well respecetd, national H&S Consultancy to deliver this but it was deemed unsatisfactory by HSE so they cam e to us, I delivered 2 workshops modified to include a couple of practical exercise (which have now become a standard part of the workshop) and HSE were happy and signed the company off as complying. Hope this answers your question and sorry if I've gone off the thread slightly! Cheers.. Paul

Hokay..! P.

Hiya Robert, thanks for the post. Companies dropping out of the scheme typically do so at the time their re-assessment is due, mainly because they then have to shell out a large amount of money and they, quite rightly, review the 'worth' of the status and sometimes decide this is not great enough to maintain, i.e. it's usually a commercial decision (frustratingly and clearly we need to do more, much more, to increase the 'worth/value' of the status, after all its' a voluntry scheme NOT mandatory.) In terms of 'withdrawals' annually its around 6, I would say, and probably 3 or 4 of these ar ethe commercial decisions I mentioned above with retirements / ill-health / folding up etc. being the other reasons. Thankfully tho, to date, more join than leave, marginally, so numbers are fairly constant around the 150 mark. WL Council are still AAACs but they chose not to advertise on the website nor in the Dircetory as they don't do outside work ad don't want the inevitable enquiries. FF are no longer AAAC sadly. Your hypothetical question is a very good one, thank you. My none 'hypothetical' reply is I wholly accept there will be occassions, hopefully the exception rather than the rule, where ACs will be required to undertake none BS3998/industry 'good' practice works as you have to make a living and, if the client is intent that's what they want doing, then better you as a reputable contractor do it safely and responsibly than someone else. HOWEVER, what I would expect is that the AAAC gives a very clear explanantion of the implications of those actions AND what the likley outcomes will be AND the requirements for future management etc., i.e. regularly dealing with the regrowth, every 4-5 years, on a 'topped' Poplar before they start breaking out. I would also like to see this written into the quote so the client is clearly informed of the consequences of the actions and understands why it doesn't accord with good practice....that, for me, is the differnce bewteen a good contractor doingthis type of work as the exception, with a well informed client, and the rogue contractor who don't give a damn and don't understand why what they do stores up problems for the future. In this situation, I would also like to see alternatives offered, i.e. if the tree really is too big for the site then removal and replacemnet with something more suited is my recommednation Mrs Miggins. Interestingly this is a 'hypothetical' scenario I often pose during the Q&A session of the AC assessment as it allows exploration of a whole host of knwoledge areas, i.e. why is it bad practice, what are the likely outcomes, what if the tree was TPO'd?..etc. etc. etc. Really good fun stuff..ha! Best regards, post back if more 'hypotheticals' I likes um! Thanks again.. Paul

Putting my neck on the line here a bit, BUT before I do can I just say (yawn, ywan, here he goes...time to make a brew!) what you're doing withyour diary is absoluetly fine so long as 'Mrs Miggins' gets entered in there, probably with an appointment to quote straight away (= bl**dy good customer service) n then you turns up when you said you would and follow up withyour quote (one chap, samll company, recently had a quote triplicate pad he took to site and gave the quote there n then....fantastic! AND, he got many jobs there and then as clients didn't want to wait for others....see we've got lost of little gems to share!) The message being we wouldn't be insisting you employ a secretary for this purpose and provide her with a computer & MS Outlook for electronic diary appts. BUT if you have and you do then that's absolutely fine too....kinda 'horses for course' BUT, importnatly, withthe same outcome, i.e. a happpy 'Mrs Miggins', n that's what we're interetsted in! Reet, is the blade sharp (for mi neck?) The following gives an indication of the weightings assigned to the various aspects of the standards (this is guidance and 'not set in stone'...maybe in should be...dunno?!) Sect. Title Element Score Accumulative Score 1 On site* 20 2 Completed works* 20 40 3 Customer Care/Office 5 45 4 H&S systems / procedures 10 55 5 Training / competence 10 65 6 Personnel / HR 3 68 7 Insurance 3 71 8 Managers Arb Knowledge 10 81 9 Ref. material 2 83 10 Wildlife / ecology 5 88 11 Reports (optional) 0 88 12 Licences 4 92 13 Stores / workshop 5 97 14 Yard 3 100 * indicates a mandatory element which must be achieved at above 75% of available marks SORRY THIS HAS GOT COMPLETELY LOST IN TRANSLATION, THE FIRST FIGURE IS THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT SCORE AND THE SECOND THE ACCUMULATIVE SCORE The point I'm trying to make here (and please accept the above as indicative, it's what the assessors are mindful of when arriving at an outcome to an assessment) is that a 'heavy' weighting is given to the practical aspects of the job, i.e. 50% if you include the managers knowledge as much questioning surrounds the works undertaken. I often get asked why only '3' marks assigned to Insurance whihc is importnat and a good indication of a responsible and repuatble contractor, the reason being whilst you MUST have appropraite insurance (and please read your policies, I do ('ANORAK!'), and it wouldn't be the first time I've pointed out a height restriction on felling, for instance, taht the contractor wasn't aware of) it's actully very easy to obtain ('YES' it cost much hard earned 'dosh' but anyone can get it!) However not everyone can do a bl**dy good crown reduction, or crown thin, even with CS40 on board and some previous experience and that's a real test. Equally not everyone can dismantle a tree using 'modern', i.e. not a 16mm polyprop over a branch crotch, rigging systems safely and efficiently and at a commercial pace even with CS41 on board. And whilsy a contractor would need the latter, i.e. CS41, in place (not necessarily CS40) it's real 'operational competence' we are looking for and when we see it working well we're very happy and smiley. Not quite sure how I got here but I hope this info is useful (if not really relevant to the posting...ooops!) thanks.. Paul

Hi 'Mesterh', You're absolutely right, the 'direct costs' ain't that bad, it's the indirect, i.e. time/effort&resources to the company/firm, thats' the 'BIG' issue. Hence taht's why we produced the 'AA H&S Package' to hopefully help contractors comply. Thanks.. Paul

Hi Andy, thanks for the post (stop being so bl**dy polite, you're starting to sound like me and you don't want that, you'll be writing reams next...ha!) I have some (serious) ideas but essentially I believe we need to have ONE level of approval for ALL but, other than i) safe working practices (the active worksite audit), and ii) work quality audit (the completed works) which will remain the same high standard for all, i.e will be a 'constant', that the levels of evidence required for the other asepcts will vary according to the size of the company. CHAS already recognise this for instance with 'less than 5' employers but we don't (there is a good reason why we haven't do date BUT 'times r a changin' n we need to too!) Correspondingly (great word...and I can spell it!) this will require less assessing = lowered associated costs to the contractor = (hopefully) lowered associated annual scheme subscription fees to the contractor = (hopefully) "a pat on the back for Mr Smith for seeing the light" = more likely "A KICK UP THE A*SE FOR NOT SEEING IT BEFORE NOW".....right tree OR 'barking'??? Please keep this quiet as it's very provisional at this stage...'Mums the word'...thanks! Paul

Hi 'SWB', currently there are 3 ACs based in Scotland and one other who operates just over the border form Durham area (see Approved Contractors - Area 1 - Scotland) So certainly space for (plenty) more! Cheers.. Paul

Mr Blair...SIR, you're a gent. Dare I suggest, particularly if you compare it ot the cost of engaging 2 business/industry consultants for the day to undertake a check of all aspects of your company procedures and operations, it's not that bad, and maybe even 'good value for money'. BUT, bottom line, it is nonetheless a 'fair old wadge' and we need to try harder here (AND we are looking very hard and very seriously at how we can achieve this, particularly for the smaller firms!) Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, thanks for the post. Just quickly ('yeah right!') to explain if I may. Since the advent of the arrangement with CHAS we have looked closer at the role of the person performing the 'competent H&S assistant' within the company as defined by the Management of H&S at Work Regs. (1999) Thankfully, both in the associated ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) and on the HSE website they take a more pragmatic view and accept that in a small firm this role can be performed bythe employer themselves rather tha apointing someone from the workforce to assist them (outside input can still be obtained too BUT make sure it's relevant to OUR industry NOT construction etc.) However in so doing they (the employer) need to ensure the are adequately competent and, whilst accepting that experience and the knowledge gained therein is extremely important, addition of a recognised H&S certification/qualification will undoubtedly help AND, importnatly, make the employers position more defensible if challenged at any time. Hence I suggest/recommend either the IOSH (Institute of Occupationl Safety & Health) 'Managing Safely' (level 2), typically a 4-5 day assessed course costing circa £400 (I think), for smaller companies, OR the NEBOSH (National Examination Board in Occupational Safety & Health) 'National General Certificate' (level 3), typically 15 days learning + exams costing circa £900 (I think). Many HE colleges offering this training, I did mine at my local one, or other training providers nationally, check out on the www. Hoping this info to be of use (and not overkill!) Cheers,, Paul

I'd say if you can do it now, ideally with no or few 'dependents/commitments' GO FOR IT as nothing to be lost, everything to be gained AND its sooooooooo much harder when you're ol....not quite so young! I didn't have the opportunity when I was in the early part of my career. Also, in terms of advancing our industry, AND whilst acknowledging on the cutting side 'experience' is (almost) everything, the more degrees there are around the better recognition we'll all get. Good luck and hope you make the right choice (for you!) Paul