AA Teccie (Paul)

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

Take it I'm not allowed to have a go here?! 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