AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi 'Meep', thanks for the post. Whilst we aren't looking to 'recruit' anymore AAAC assessors at this current time I sincerely hope we will be in the near future when we've revised the scheme and made it (much) more accessible to smaller contractors in particular, whilst at the same time increasing it's value and recognition both within and outwith the industry. The current panel of 15 (inc. 'yours truely') is a fairly good mix of trainers/assessors, AC managers, arb consultants, H&S consultants, business management consultant and AA Tech staff BUT certainly more AAAC managers would be welcomed so that contractors are reviewed by their peers in effect (AKA assessed by like-minded, and experienced, people/contractors). I have produced a set of 'draft' qualifying criteria for assessors which I'm more than happy to share if you'd like to email me directly ([email protected]). In due course, and on the pending 'new' AA website, it is proposed these criteria when finalised will be published/viewable. Cheers.. Paul

Cheers 'arb culture', glad we are proving to be of at least some help by posting here...NOT before time tho eh?! ("better late than nevaaa"???...hope so!) I'm more than happy to receive any and all (constructive) criticism that allows the AA to learn and move forward, AND to better represent the industry....this is my/our only motivation! The issue of improving accessibility to 'approval' status, for those who see benefits in so doing, is under serious consideration at the moment and, along with the feedback received from the recent consultation exercise we undertook, I'm very positive and optimistic a way forward will be achieved (THANKS to yours, and your colleagues here on the forum, valuable feedback so far!) All the best and I look forward to your further 'postback' when you get a mo. Paul

Hi John, Thanks for great 'pics', certainly makes me wish I had the chance to go back in time sometimes instead of being a 'pen pusher/keyboard basher', albeit very heavy pens & keyboards so my lats n biceps r still pretty good (NOT REALLY!) Just remind me there someone posted a while ago about good exercises for tree climbing, well IMO besides 'more' tree climbing, I always reckoned bent over rows for the left-hand 'lat' (as I'm right handed) was good....I did try 'chin ups' too but my torso was always disproportionate in weight to myarm/back strength (AKA 'fat b****rd' syndrome!) Anyway, sorry, reason for posting...did you consider doing the veteran / 'coronet' / natural farcture cuts here at all? Only a thought that it may have helped to break up some of the harsh outline which is inevitable when doing such a heavy reduction. Purely an 'aesthetics' thing. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Andy, If this doesn't 'sell' let me know and I'll send it round the ACs. Hope all's well with you?! Best regards.. Paul

Likewise David, thank you for making the contact! Glad you found the day useful, it's pretty much well refined now being this is the 4th or 5th year the HSE have run it. Indeed the cost of training, inc. down time and lack of productivity etc., means it soon mounts up to a considerable some...and then they move on ofr 25p an hour more.....aghhhhh, oh to be an employer eh! Scott, in particular, runs a pretty big outfit so he costs etc. will alwasy be proprotionally higher and whilst it was very relevant to explain these, and indeed taht's why a contractor delivers that spot, i think he grabbed an opportunity to remind his clients, many of whom were present, why they may not be the cheapest...but hey, that doesn't matter anyway under 'Best Value' (hmmm!) Best regards.. Paul

PHEW, picked this one up by luck rather than good management. If we were presented with this scenario on an AAAC worksite audit, as we have been previously, we'd be looking for CS41 (which would mean they'd have to have CS39 anyway) and a MEWP ticket (if they were 'steering' it). With this combination we wouldn't require they had CS47 (Chainsaw in MEWP) as those skills are conisdered covered by the other units. That's the easy bit (to assess) the hard bit is whether they are deemed 'competent and proficient' in the operation. If not, regardless of NPTCs, they'd fa**...sorry, they wouldn't pass! Cheers.. Paul PS Excellent, I'm getting 'brieferer' in my replies....RELIEF!

My profuse apologies "Mr Blair...Sir!" A copy of the current standards/qualifying criteria for AAAC can be viewed at http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs_v7-2_0110.pdf and if you provide address details I can arrange for a full info pack to be sent. The assessment is a company based assessment and so everyone within is captured in some respect, hence your 'groundie' would be principally involved as part of the work site audit and any other aspect of the service provision/delivery he's involved with, i.e if he does the chainsaws/machinery maintenance etc., or the quoting, or he's the tree indenter....wahtever capacity he may be involved. We've also produced a 'H&S Package' specifically designed to assist smaller companies to become better compliant, whihc has been well received and helpful. Finally the current cost for an AC assessment is £867.92+VAT (£1,019.81), which includes your first 12months AC subs from the date of approval (currently £460 p/a and payable thereafter.) As, I think, I mentioned previously being such a small company/firm I'd wait a 'wee' while, unless you have clients pressing for the accreditation, just in case the situation changes in the near future (which I would suggest is very likely.) Best regards...'Sir'. Paul

Hi 'Arb Culture', Thanks for your post and I'm glad you 'like' some of what we do for you as a member. However, sorry, but I'm a bit lost with your last para. REALLY SORRY to disect your post, and maybe I haven't done so in the best way, but I want to try to understand so I can provide a better reply: "I would also like to be able to say they promote good tree care through encouraging good arboricultural practice. But unfortunately the AARC and the AAAC schemes prevent them being able to do so." = are you saying these schemes prevent/inhibit us from engaging with others in the industry thereby restricting the encouragement of good arb practice from all? "The AA only promote those people who are AARC or AAAC rather than helping the general public understand the myriad of other schemes/qualifications in existance, eg ISO, ISA, ICF, Trustmark, NPTC, RFS, Tech Cert, LANTRA etc." = how would this help the point above about promoting good tree care or is it highlighting a separate issue about the AA better informing clients about the various 'awards' etc. that are available and what fits where? (If so the 'Choose Your Arborist' leaflet seeks to do this to some extent.) "If the AA were able to be unbiased about it they could make a huge impact in helping to sort out the mess of qualifications and accreditation. Unfortunately they can only promote their own (money making) scheme. This is where the conflict of interest comes in to play." = I guess the first part of this relates to the point above. I f however we could help to sort out the 'mess' as you refer to it this would be for the benefit of all, not just ACs & RCs, would it not? The scheme itself seeks to promote 'good tree care' and I'm sure any contractor having previously gone through the system will confirm this. Sorry. maybe the lightbulb's just switched on, are you meaning we should promote all contractors undertaknig good tree care and not just ACs & RCs? If so how do we know if they don't present themselves for audit/assessment? I'm now thying to third and fourth guess, never mind second, so I'll await your response...thanks! Paul PS You refer to the scheme as 'money making' and, if I may, I'd just like to reiterate that whilst I acknowledge it costs a lot of money for contractors to go through the assessment process, I reckon, on average as assessors costs (expenses) to the AA vary dependent upon location and timing etc., the 'surplus' generated is less than £25 per assessment. We are not looking to 'make money' at all BUT have to cover costs and generate a surplus to survive.

If okay I'll adopt something of a watching brief on this one, as I am with Andy Collins 'POLL' posting on the general forum. If you want me to answer something specific that you've raised perhaps enter 'Teccie?' at the bottom of your post...d'ya think? However I'm gonna respond to 'arb culture' as I'm a bit lost with his(?) posting. Thanks all.. Paul

Hi Andy, thanks for the post. Is that "those on the outside" or "those on the dark-side"...CHEEKY! You're absolutely right and, bizzarely, its not for want of not wanting to (that's wrong but you'll know what I mean!) but just not really how best to do so...still, here we are now 'to listen'. Cheers.. Paul

Hey 'Mesterh', tahks for the reply. The issue concerning members being allowed to us ethe AA logo is curently under review with a very serious consideration taht they should. BUT, currently, they cannot...only the AA, AAACs & AARCs. To be honest, and believe it or not, it's often 'work quality' that lets applicants down. PLus often associated arb knowledge. The other stuffs easy to sort. Cheers.. Paul PS Sorry rushed reply, just leaving home (S.Devon) to travel to London...aghhh!!!

Stuart, thanks for your post here, albeit it did concern me a little. I have just spoken to Devon County Council, as I have on several previous occassions, and they have confirmed that having AAAC status is absolutely recognised and does have value. The analogy would be that CHAS, as basic H&S compliance, opens the door and then AAAC (automatically) or 'equivalent' (after a DCC audit AND provided you 'pass'), as the 'operational competence' test, allows you to walk through. The first DCC audit, required for none AAACs, will apparently be FOC first time round and then charged thereafter as it's undertaken on an annual basis, AAACs will apparently not be required to do this. DCC also pointed out that whilst of value on their contract, their 'approval' in effect, will carry no value / weight outside of this and selected contractors will not be entitled to use this status in business advertisnig etc. unlike AAAC. Reading between the lines the impression I got was that, ideally, they would like ALL arb contractors to be AAACs, to ensure a consistent approach and save them a job, and they are likely to encourage such during the contract term. Lastly, in recognition of AAAC, they have invited me to talk to the selected contractors towards the end of April. Regards.. Paul

THANKS ANDY et al, for your postings so far. I continue to watch with interest, and I'm learning and getting new ideas which is great. The 'poll' is painting a very interesting picture and perhaps one we've chosen to ignore previously believing what we do and what we offer represents "good value for money"...but then WE would of course (listen to your potential customers ArbAssoc!!!) Again, if okay with everyone, I'll let it run a little while longer and the give further, more detailed, comment thereafter. Cheers all.. Paul

Hi Danavan, apologies it's taken me a few days to find my way back here! Thanks for your kind words about my 'waffling habit', and your posts are great with good points raised and questions asked, communication is 'KEY', the other stuff (spellings, grammar, punctuation etc.) less so...no worries, you comm. well! In terms of what do we do for existing AAACs, to be honest, and excluding production of the annual Directory and website entries, not as much as I'd like to be doing. We do present on the HSE SHAD (Safety and Health Awareness Day) 'Engaging Competent Arb Contractors' BUT our principle remit is to promote the AAAC standards as a benchmark for arb contracting. In-directly tho it does promote the AAACs also. I also plan to attend at least 4 Tree Officer meetings per year starting this year, having done the NW region and Midlands in a few weeks, to promote the scheme & ACs. I am also in the process of producing a programme for kind of 'a mini-SHAD', run by the AA, where we will promote the ACs (very) directly. We are currently trying to get a regular 'writing spot' in the RHS 'The Gardner' publication too. I'm also currently making a concerted effort to keep ACs up-to-date on H&S and industry good practice stuff, along with occasional relevant infomration from the Business Link website etc. But again ('yawn' time) it all takes time and resources and at the present rate certainly nothing happens overnight I'm afraid. Hoping this better answers your question this time (if not, or if there's more, please post back!) Cheers.. Paul

Thank you David, it's not before time (that we, the AA, joined the 'ARBTALK' ranks) and there has indeed been quite a 'buzz' around as you say, long may it continue. Be sure to say 'hello' tomorrow in case I don't recognise you. Best regards.. Paul

Hi Jose, May have lost th thread a little but if you're considering felling, after TPO consents etc., I'd serioulsy consider trying to poison/kill the tree off first to prevent the prolifc regrowth that will undoubtedly occur, and probably still will but hoepfully manageable. Just athought... Paul

Hi 'Deerman', thanks for the post and enquiry. To get approval you have to present your company to the AA for assessemtn/audit (involving 2 assessors being with you for a long, but pleasurable, day) hopefully with a positive outcome. Not a sales pitch at all but regardless of the outcome, as the reality is with so much stuuf to cover and see something's gonna be missing, almost all firms comment the day has been useful and helpful (we're never trying to catch anyone out but trying to catch everyone 'in'!) The key areas covered are: 1. Office procedures / customer care / insurances & licences 2. H&S compliance / training & competence 3. Worksite audit (inc. rigging ops., ideally with sectional felling) 4. Completed works audit (inc. planting, 1 std. tree, & pruning, 2x reductions + 2x thins) 5. Workplace H&S audit (office, stores, workshop, yard etc.) 6. Arb technical knowledge assessment (detailed, but gentle, Q&A session throughout the day, often applied or scenario based) see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs_v7-2_0110.pdf for further (detailed) info. The cost is currently approx. £870+VAT and this include your first 12months subs from the date of approval (if, as is sometimes the case first time round, we have to revisit the company a further fee approx. £440+VAT is incurred...this is only required where something considered either major, is amiss, or where lots of minor issues are found). Thereafter subs are £450 per year and include your firms entry onto the AA website and into the hard copy Directory. Timescales currently, after receipt of application and fee, 4-6 weeks to visit the firm (but this is flexible). To put the necessary systems / procedures etc. in place can be anything upto 12 months dependent upon time / resources available. AGAIN, "foot, shoot & myself", BUT if there is no pressing urgency I would advise waiting to see how/if the scheme is modified in the near future and particularly for small firms, 'less than 5 employees'. Hoping this answers your questions, post back if not or if more. Thanks.. Paul

'Skyhuck', absolutely! See my previous post. I used to think this was unachievable, hence the current CHAS arrangement, BUT with the SSIP now there's an opportunity. Cheers.. Paul

Gibbon, thanks for the post and for the very 'applied'(?) way you present the process of achieving AAAC. I honestly wonder whether the 'standards/qualifying criteria' (Appendix E) we produce, i.e. all 17 pages (see http://www.trees.org.uk/downloads/aaactcs_v7-2_0110.pdf) actually help or hinder us. I previously expanded these form the original 6 pages of tick boxes in an attempt to clarify what was required AND add (hopefully) helpful comments, BUT maybe in so doing I actually did the opposite...dunno! Anyway, another thought out loud. I reply principally to remind people the AAAC accreditation is now 'dualled' with CHAS, i.e 'two for one'...BOGOFF???...PARDON!!!! This has undoubtedly helped increase the recognition and credibility of the AAAC scheme, and in particular outside of the arb industry. My next plan is to get the scheme recognised in its own right as part of the 'Sector Schemes in Procurement' (SSIP, see SSIP - Safety Schemes In Procurement) which should increase this even further and, in an ideal world (does that really ever exist?) will mean the scheme has equal recognition with CHAS/exor/SafeContractor etc. BUT MORE AAACS & A BIGGER VOICE WOULD CLEARLY HELP HERE!!! PLUS we then need to better market and promote the scheme and standards and, whilst I have some ideas, this is absolutely not my domain. I also see value in getting the scheme ISO9001 (UKAS), yet again to add further credibility. So why am I telling you all this?..i) you should know what you're industry body is aiming towards, ii) because hopefully you'll see we are a credible body in which to place your faith (and money...sorry, necessary evil etc!)....oh n also because I get bored easily...'yeah, right!' Thanks again.. Paul PS Glad to hear you found the whole process of assesment useful as well as beneficial.

NO, NO, NOOOOOOO......we have some very nice 'stickers', maybe not the biggest ones but "size don't always matter" (apparently), well we will/should have soon...'watch this space'! Paul

Hi Rich, thanks for the post. The AA logo's are privately registered which means we (the AA) can take civil action against those 'passing off' as an AAAC but are not, trouble is it's very expensive to do so and even if you win, as we have previously, the offender essentially 'gets a slap on the wrist', told not to do it again and to pay back our expenses...based on their ability to pay, i.e. £5 a week (or similar) = wot a farce!!! Trading Standards can also take criminal action and, interestingly, seem to be getting more active in this area, probably in part due to 'Rogue Traders' programme. To be honest with persistent and determined offenders the law isn't very helpful (an understatement???) and it's very difficult to deter them and get a satisfactory outcome. BBC Watchdog are in contact with us and we are currently 'on the look out', so to speak, for a suitable case of logo mis-use combined with bad practice , 'ripping' clients off and intinidation, ideally, to complete the compliment. Trouble is we can't find one! From a members point of view, ultimately, memebrship can be removed (but seldom is this done as we just point out the error of their ways and they 'play ball'.) Cheers.. Paul

ABSOLUTELY, it is imperative we do everything we can to avoid confusion to the client and hence my postings about a uniquely identifiable logo for AAACs, along with perhaps restricting stickers for none AAACs to 6"x6" generic window stickers rather than door stickers (a thought at this stage!) Thanks for the post 'Gibbon'.. Paul

Hi 'IC', CAVEATED!!!...my EARLY thoughts here are, ideally, to make it 'ALL' for all (WHAT???), i.e. one standard/star rating for all BUT the process of achieving is appropriate to the size of the company and ability to pay, i.e. in particular 'less than 5 employees', AND the annual subs perhaps based on annual turn-over = the bigger companies, who stand to benefit most, pay more. "BULLS/RAGS n RED???"...hope not as thoughts out loud and keen not to stifle them...including mine please! I fully acknowledge the current situation doesn't work for many/most companies, although it clearly does for a few (usually tho, even where small/very small companies are involved, the motivation is often the LA and/or a desire to expand into that sector = financial benefits to be gained make the realted expenditure viable) AND this is something we must address! There, again, why use one word when thousands are available...oops! Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Mesterh', Indeed and that's what we're working towards. Just a thought tho (dangerous I know!), whilst I entirely support releasing use of the AA logo we also owe a duty to AAACs to ensure, with all due respect, they have a uniquely identifiable logo given they've presented their companies, in effect, for peer review ('crabbed' that from someone elses posting...thank you!) Whether that would/should restrict use of vehicle stickers to the kinda 6"x6" generic 'Care for Trees' window stickers rather than the 12"x12' door stickers I dunno...need to think that through. Hope you see where I'm coming from here...any thoughts? Cheers.. Paul

Cheers Lee, thanks for posting back! Paul