AA Teccie (Paul)

Skyhuck, You've lost me I'm afraid (I've been sat in front of this thing since early this morning so that's probably partly why...apologies from the 'numpty'!) You're saying if it was as simple as coming watching you work for a day you'd consider it...if so that's progress, right? (probably 'wrong'!) So we're looking at different levels of accreditation? Would that not be confusing to the client? You are right in that currently making the decision to become an AAAC is principally a commercial one, but is that not the same with most things you do?...dunno! Sos, 'clutchin at straws' a bit and the M5 / M4 / M3 is beckoning...I'm going 'downnnnnn'! Off now, and out all day tommorrow, so will catch up Thursday if okay. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Welwell', I'd tread carefully t'be honest at this time of year as if the saps rising that probably indicates "the onset of growth" (the late, great Dr Shigo) and hence a high energy use period. Whack it off now, particularly if it's not been whacked before, and it could be too much for poor old 'Syccie'...dunno! T'cover yourself I'd tell the client if they insist you crack on you can't gaurantee the 'shock' won't kill the tree, that said that could happen at anytime with a 'one hit' pollarding job! That said, it is 'Syccie' n thems tuff. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Yorkshireman', thanks for the post! Sorry, not quite sure I understand your first point (perhaps a cross -Penine lingo confusion?) Shout if I'm down the wrong track but by 'amenity trees' I mean all trees within the LAs remit, not just the 'posh ones'. No, the AA are principally a charity but because of our contact with the 'practising' industry' via the accreditation schemes AC & RC, which have a commercial basis, the charity commission got a little nervous and insisted we set up a separate company to administer them, hence 'AA Trading Limited' (we see/saw NO conflict at all but had to comply). Believe me (or look on Companies House webiste OR members can request a copy but has to be in writing...sorry!...email?) there is no profit there, perhaps a marginal surplus, but I always consider this to be a 'not for profit' scheme simply a way of promoting industry standards. Cheers.. Paul

...or, put another way, and going back to my 'northern' origins, "c'mon in, sit thee dhan n av a brew". Please post freely, within reason no subject/topic is 'taboo', but remember in so doing we want to be here to help and move the industry forward for EVERYONE'S benefit including those on which we work who rely on us for a voice, i.e. 'them there trees!' Thanks all. Paul 'AA Teccie' Smith PS. I will endeavour to deal with all your postings promptly but please bear with me as some weeks I'm out of the office for 2-3 consecutive days and can't always get a signal on "mi 'V.' dongle!"

Hi Andy, Wow, you've been busy...I'm afraid I need to "phone a friend" here (therein lies my first problem!) and enlist input from the 'big guns' in order to give you a full and proper response as this one's a little out of my league. Trouble is I'm unlikely to be able to do so until Thursday I'm afraid as Nick's currently unavailable and I'm delivering a training course tomorrow...sorry! Cheers.. Paul

Hello 'Yorkshireman', CHAS has 2 levels of membership, for the want of a better term, 1. Registered (renewed every 2 years) & 2. Accreditted (renewed annually). You're quite right that AAAC is not inspected anually BUT one of the 'key' proposals for the scheme from 2011 is that it will involve an inspection every 2 years to synchronise with CHAS Registration & subsequent renewals. IF, as most contractors do, AAACs become accreditted then the proposal is that it will be alternate assessments by the AA & then CHAS. Hope this helps (and more importantly makes sense...aghhh!) Cheers.. Paul

ALL, thank you for your comments. I wasn’t sure how best to reply (in terms of layout etc.) hence I’ve gone for this collective approach....hope it works okay, let me know if not (HOPE this doesn’t crash the site Steve!) Q. - Considering the AAs strict rules on use of the terminology of membership status and that you are the moderator on the AA dedicated forum area, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask....... are you in fact "Paul Smith" - Arboricultural Association Technical Officer, Author of the report in question and Scheme manager of the AAAC? PS - Yes, I am that person. Q. - Comment from the AA: Overall approx. 80% of respondents agreed to this proposal. Some comments address several questions (which is not untypical of the comments in general, I think some respondents just made comments as they came into their minds) Well that says it all really doesnt it ............ Whats the point of asking when you have a mind set like that........ PS - In context the point I was making here, after reading all of 1,145 of them, was that many respondents clearly made comments as the came into their minds as they weren’t necessarily related to the question being asked (BUT this is/was absolutely fine AND we took on board ALL comments made). Not sure I can offer any further comment here...sorry! Q. - 8c- The issue of LA TOs etc. ‘policing’ the standards locally again came up with a suggestion for simplified complaints/notification procedure to be agreed between the AA & NATO members for reporting of incidents. the use of tax payers money to support a private venture NAUGHTY PS – LA TOs are charged with managing ‘amenity’ trees in the urban environment (or similar) are they not? This includes private trees both TPO’d/CA and those that are not. Hence surely it is entirely within their remit. The LAs, the largest respondent group, were keen to see more ‘policing’ of the scheme and hence discussions with NATO promoted an approach of engaging with them nationally for the benefit of ‘amenity trees’ and the industry as they are very well placed so to do. Whilst technically we may fit the description of a ‘private venture’ (I’m really not sure?!) we are a registered charity and an industry body available to all. Q. - Comment from the AA: The AA recognises that better marketing of the AA & AAAC/RC schemes are required along with promotion of the standards. The AA’s new website will be launched in April 2010 and this will prominently lead browsers to “Find a Professional” Who will that include THEN ?????????? AAACs only if so are others not professional ? .... Yet more them & us PS – I respond here to several comments to this effect. I’m really sorry you feel this way “...more them & us” as this is absolutely not the case (and believe me it frustrates the heck out of me, as clearly it does you, albeit looking in at opposite ends.) We/I/the AA fully recognise there are many ‘Professionals’ out there, indeed the majority are still ‘out there’ as has been pointed out, BUT we don’t know about you, we haven’t met you and we haven’t assessed your firms / operations against a recognised industry benchmark (HSE recognised) and hence we cannot directly promote you (as mentioned previously, we have however produced the ‘Choose Your Arborist’ (CYA) leaflet which aims to capture ALL reputable & professional firms and educates the clients what questions to ask.) We are obliged to promote ACs & RCs to the best of our ability, afterall that’s part of the reason they achieve the status, and hence the wording on the new website. IF you were an AAAC/AARC you would (quite rightly) expect this too...surely?! Q. - Thats going to be great, the AA is basically saying that 98% of the industry is unprofessional, i hope they have a resident legal team as that is surely just going to lead to huge amounts of lawsuits for what can only be described as slander. This makes me so angry, who do they think they are saying that if you dont pay us money to register in our scheme we will say you are not professional...... I honestly belive that the industry will never move forward as long as the AA in its current form is our speaking body PS – Again I’m sorry you feel so angry at us. Your interpretation of what we are saying is absolutely not the case at all. We only know of 2%(?) of the industry as ‘Professionals’ as those are the companies who have chosen to present themselves for AC assessment. We get several calls/enquiries from people looking for a ‘professional’ in their area and the nearest AC is 50miles away. Hence we replying by saying there will be other reputable & professional companies closer that we don’t know of, and suggest they speak to their LA TO (who increasing often then refer them back as they’re reluctant to recommend anyone because of fears of come backs). This is when we send them a copy of the ‘CYA’ leaflet and suggest they speak to neighbours with trees for any recommendations....what else could we do? PLEASE tell us/me what you want/expect from an industry body as I fully acknowledge we aren’t as well engaged as we need to be (an under-statement some may say?!) and we do want to ‘speak’ with one (BIG) voice for you. Q. - I like the "very Positive Response" statment. Going off what i hear, AA do you not realise that the majority of the industry havent responded to this consultation, they are too busy with the real world and trying to earn a living in tough times.! If you went to every company in the industry you would more than likely get very differnt responses PS – This statement was said in the context of those responses received and, whilst I fully acknowledge it’s a very small percentage of the industry, it was ‘positive’ (I don’ t do ‘spin’, I’m not clever enough, I just said it as I saw it!) I also acknowledge this is not necessarily representative of the whole industry but, sorry, there’s no way we could go to every company, even by direct email, as we don’t have the resources to do so and then collate & analyse the responses. The ‘survey monkey’ thing was seen as the best option and we did post in several different places (inc. here thanks to Steve) to alert people to it. I know it’s not everyone’s ‘cup of tea’, on-line n websites n the like, so I’m more than happy to listen to any and all ideas at the Trade Fair (‘Arb Show’) in June OR call me 01242 522152. Q. - Brilliant point mate. Is it any wonder that there are so few AA members (no AAAC in cornwall anymore AT ALL) when they waste their time and effort on stupid questionnaires to which only a minimal %age of industry members reply, and then try to encourage more of us to part with (extremely) hard earned cash to join a scheme that means sweet FA to most of the public. Get off you rpedestal AA and start actually promoting us, the guys on the ground, in the eyes of the public, and a few more of us might start considering jumping through the hoops and paying the fees, instead of essentially branding a large proportion of the industry as unproffessional by default. PS – Again I’m sorry you feel we are ‘branding you as unprofessional by default’, nothing could be further from the truth!!! As I’ve mentioned above we know about a minority of companies who have demonstrated their professionalism to us via the AAAC assessment process and hence we promote them. You invite us/the AA to “...start actually promoting us, the guys on the ground, in the eyes of the public” ...how?, as much as we’d like to, we don’t know you, haven’t seen your work standards, haven’t observed your working practices etc. Again we do hope to promote you ‘indirectly’ via the CYA leaflet with the clients asking the pertinent questions. I think that’s it, for the moment, but doubtless I’ll be back later. Thanks all. Cheers.. Paul

Well I guess the 'honeymoon' period is over eh?! So, if okay with you, I'll let the thread run a little further before responding on several points. The AA Forum will hopefully be 'open for business' very shortly but, to be honest, given this particular topic and the interest it will/has generated perhaps it's better where it is on the 'General' forum so more can get involved in 'airing their views'?! Thanks all.. Paul

DCC were aware of AAAC status prior to this tendering situation AND indeed used AAACs previously. DCC sent reps on a recent(ish) HSE/AA event at Okehampton (I believe) where the AAAC was (discreetly) promoted. DCC have spoken to me about this framework situation on several occasions and about the connection between AAAC & CHAS DCC have asked me to attend a presentation to their appointed contractors, when done, to discuss AAAC & CHAS. Not sure what else we/I/the AA could have doen here to be honest?...sorry! I have spoken with several AAACs in the Devon area who, whilst holding some degree of frustration regarding the "...or equivalent" consideration, seem reasonably satisfied with the AAs involvement. Cheers.. Paul

...or a very (very) long ladder?! Excellent image (made me laff!)...is that AAA..C it says on the can?

Yup, it was/is DCC. There certainly seemed to be some confusion at the time of 'that' meeting over what the requirements were and hence I spoke with them directly to clarify the situation and what I've posted above is what I understand to be the case. They've alos invited me to speak to their contractors, once appointed (prob somtime in April), about AAAC status, what's involved and how it combines with CHAS as this seems to tick all their boxes. Cheers.. Paul

Danavan, excellent someone who appreciates my '...at much length' postings, now I just need to get to '...at great length', I'll try my best. Jokin apart, what esle do you want us to do for you? (realistically and please remember 'forum etiquette & decorum'!) OR, put it another way, what issues can we help with that are affecting you? I can 'bleat on' about other stuff the AA does and list the plethora of different groups and bodies we represent on but that may mean very little to you and/or hold little value if it doesn't affect your day-to-day operations. I acknowledge to date we haven't been as active or vociferous as other industry bodies perhaps but the reality is we're 'small fry' by comparison. Nevertheless we do have some 'big hitters' so let me know. Cheers.. Paul PS Apologies for this posting being so brief!

I'm gonna miss summat, sumwhere soon...if so PLEASE rattle my cage personally, i.e PM me (gud eh, I'm gettin the lingo?...maybe not!) You might be right. I have heard there's some piece of European legislation which may deem it 'anti-competitive', and therby open to legal challenge, if a LA (in particular I guess, being an 'arm' of central government) states a contractor must be a member of XXX or must be acreditted by XXX when it's not a legal requirement so to be in order to be able to trade. That said many do insist upon, for instance, CHAS or 'exor' (particularly at LA level) for H&S compliance but maybe that's different being H&S based...dunno?! A county council I am aware of have put together a 'Framework Agreement for Tree Surgery Services' where CHAS Accreditation is required ('to open the door') and then 'AAAC or equivalent' is required ('to step inside'). Apparently the 'or equivalent' is the contractor presenting themselves for assessment by the CC against industry benchmarks (guess what, largely the AAAC standards). The CC have stated their hope that before contract renewal, in 3 years time, all contractors who make their list will become AAAC (apparently a high percentage already are and hence will not need to go through the additional hoops.) The HSE in published guidance on selecting competent contractors refer to certain criteria to consider, including: - Is the contractor a member of an industry trade organsiation? - Does the contractor have any independent assessment of their competence? Hence the value of an industry based accreditation does carry, at least, some recognition in certain sectors. Cheers.. Paul

Hi 'Markscuzzie', To some degree(?) I would suggest a governing factor is where you see yourself in say 5-10 yrs. time? IMO the RFS Cert. Arb. is a good grounding for the industry, the ISA Cert. Arb. probably (whilst both are currently level 2 on the Quals. framework) recognised at a higher level within the industry and imposes CPD/CEUs to keep up-to-date. The Tech. Cert. is currently level 3 and more geared at Supervisor level AND is very well recognised as, possibly, the point of transfer from craftsman to technician (probably sounds an obvious statement but what I mean is attainment of Tech. Cert. is often seen as a passport to becoming a 'tree advisor' then leading onto junior consultant after say 5 years experience). I guess the reality is how much time do you have available and what's available at the time...eh???? Whilst I'm more than happy to talk thru further if you wanna give me a call at the 'office' I'm sure many members have recent first hand experience they can share. Cheers.. Paul

Sorry to 'hog', this is like the AA Teccie roadshow but I don't want not to reply to someone who has taken the time to post..thanks! Whilst I wholly see your point (and I really do), AND I acknowledge that during the first round of AC reassessments an awful lot of emphasis was placed on H&S (coz a lot came in and some older stuff we'd only just figured out what to do with, LOLER / PUWER being good examples), and in some instances perhaps at the expense of work quality audits, it is nonetheless important AND, now combined with the CHAS scheme, it does potentially open more doors (often doors to the 'H&S bods' office in the first instance). The worrying thing too is that some clients seem prepared to accept 'sub-standard' work in the (false economy, IMO) interest of cost cutting. Education? However, "good treework & work quality" is still very much core to the AC status (sharp intake of breath I can hear?) and this is emphasised during the assessment/reassessment process AND, I sincerely hope, we've got the balance better in terms of paperwork 'v' operations. That said whilst we require the completed works examples on the day to be, at least, good and ideally better (exemplary), we have very little control over hwat happens thereafter and much is placed on trust and the role of the nominated manager in auditing and controlling work standards AND of course the client role, particularly at the LA level, which we are currently fostering and developing with NATO. You know I WHOLLY ACKNOWLEDGE it's often the 'little guy' (so to speak) who does the best work, taking pride in the job, in the firm and what they do, how they present themselves etc. because they have a vested interest in so doing and it's often themselves doing the work. I firmly believe that 'quality mark' on the side of the van which you mention is available we just somehow have to convince you of the same and make the route to accreditation more accessible/do-able. Cheers.. Paul

Thanks Bob, NOT a problem 'beating me down' BUT I might be the easy option, which is fine, the HSE or worse 'the cororner'(?) might be harder to beat (sorry, very pessimistic tone BUT they'll see it as "black & white" as that.) On this one 'guys' (generically) I have to say it's one aspect of the legislation I believe we should heed and work with to the best of our ability. Cheers.. Paul

Cheers 'Targettrees'...point taken on board. It is something we request to see evidence of, i.e. a note in the managers diary, but clearly we need to speak to the 'guys on the ground' (kinda) to find out for real. Good stuff...thanks! Paul

Hi 'Skyhuck', That's a fair point, succinct and a reminder of the 'real world'...thanks! I guess it's all 'well and good' me spouting on what the legislation tells us we should do but you're at the sharp end, so to speak, and counting the pennies. Don't really know what to say other than if you can't comply, and you don't see benefit in changin your business operation to do so, then please be sure that labourer has 'ready' access to a very long ladder...just in case! Cheers.. Paul

Hi Mestereh, Apologies for delay in responding but I've been unable to access the site over the weekend due to IT problems (as with some others.) Just a quickie, you mention "plus probably the most important bit having them train and re train all the time"...this is not the case. Yes, practice and re-practice BUT not 'train & re-train' which would be very costly (£s). And 'yes' the W@H Regs, were principally aimed at the construction etc. industries BUT as we work at height too we're equally affected. Cheers.. Paul

Here he goes (who keeps inviting him 'on forum'?...aghhh!) The HSE guidance cited, states: "However, in the agricultural sector, this requirement only applies to first-time users of a chainsaw.’ This means everyone working with chainsaws on or in trees should hold such a certificate or award unless: ■ it is being done as part of agricultural operations (eg hedging, clearing fallen branches, pruning trees to maintain clearance for machines); and ■ the work is being done by the occupier or their employees; and ■ they have used a chainsaw before 5 December 1998. In any case, operators using chainsaws for any task in agriculture or any other industry must be competent under PUWER 98. Essentially unless you are a 'farmer', or a farmers direct employee, pruning/cutting your(his) own trees for machinery clearance then you ain't exempted. Certainly this argument wouldn't wash with HSE should it be challenged at all. The ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) to the PUWER Regs. clearly state a requirement for a 'certificate of competence' where chainsaws are being used. Further, having spoken to several people who act as 'expert witness' to the courts, the requirement for 'update/refersher' traing seems to be very important too (which is in line with guidance in AFAG 801 Training & Certification). Lastly, in respect of AC status, we require to observe a sectional felling (or similar), incorporating 'rigging', as part of the assessment/reassessment AND we do require that CS41 be in place AND that 'both ends' of the rigging system demonstrate 'competence' during the operation. ("Grannies, eggs & sucks" but remember the chainsaw skills utilised in a take-down situation, as in those observed as part of CS41, are fundamentally different from other chainsaw tickets obtained. To date, as I understand it, the training /assessment offered here has been hugely variable (based on anecdotal evidence) and often down to the individual skills of the 'trainer/assessor' involved in the absence of a 'standard'. Hopefully the recent 'rigging research' undertaken will better inform this and result in a 'standard' to be applied consistently) Re-CS 40, to be honest this is entirely based on the 'work quality' observations, if it's good then no, if it's bad then yes (as part of an improvement programme), if it's mediocre then maybe. In other words we don't class it as 'essential'. Hope that's of help (soz if not!) Cheers.. Paul

Quick reply as I have a 70th Birthday to prepare, well okay I have to go to the 'offie' for essential supplies. Thanks for the post here. Unfortunately, 'the way of the (current) world' dictates much emphasis on H&S...which often includes form filling to 'evidence' compliance...to a point! The added bonus to this these days is it can bring with it CHAS, which may open more doors = greater income for you (hopefully!) PLUS H&S embraced can help running of the company...really!!! BUT I'm on a mission to improve work standards as I acknowledge in some, by no means all, instances these have slipped at the expense of form filling...and we MUST pay due regard to our 'finished product' coz it's that which clients will judged. I think it part, with some companies, its the growth they've experienced that the 'proud company owner' who got the AC status is now employing multiple staff and controlling 'quality' becomes more difficult...BUT THEY MUST!!! Lastly, as much as I can, I do understand you have very difficult decisions to make (more so at the moment) but I can't help thinking that if the W@H requiremenst force the issue of training up someone else AND getting them competent, then that has to be to the benefit of you and the firm...dunno! Cheers.. Paul

Hi all, (sorry to be the H&S 'nurdy' but here we go!) The requirement to have adequate arrangements at the worksite for 'aerial rescue' comes from the 'Work at Height Regs. 2005', guidance for which states: Planning Regulations 4 and 6(1, 2) 17 You must: ■ ensure that no work is done at height if it is safe and reasonably practicable to do it other than at height; ■ ensure that the work is properly planned, appropriately supervised, and carried out in as safe a way as is reasonably practicable; ■ plan for emergencies and rescue; ■ take account of the risk assessment carried out under regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. No longer can employers rely on the emergency services to effect 'rescues' at height, the first call is with them! The AA couldn't have done anything to stop this legislation being introduced, the regulations is the regulations. I see no opportunity whatsoever to apply for an 'exemption' for arboricultural works even though I acknowledge most injured climbers manage to 'self-rescue', thank goodness, but what if they didn't? We only introduce requirements for ACs to comply with legilsation / good practice when circumsatnces dictate we have to, or when we believe it is correct and beneficial so to do, and many ACs are 'little guys' who have to embrace this. Surely this requirement is not so restrictive it stops you from trading effectively?..I hope not, and perhaps it forces the training up of a 2nd competent climber which can only be of benefit to the firm. What could have done (restricted our operations) so was the European attempt a few years ago at banning two-stroke engines because of concerns over emmissions. The AA did represent the industry here and got the proposed legislation overturned. Give us a chance 'guys', work with us for the benefit of all..! Cheers and have a good weekend. Paul

Hi all, sorry I'm a bit late coming in on this one...I missed it for some reason. Just a couple(?) of quick comments: Someone mentioned the HSE & key to a succesful aerial rescue is 'competence', which is absolutely right. Hence partly why AFAG 401 was recently updated to include that very word: "A minimum of two people must be present during all treeclimbing operations. One of the team must be available on the ground, competent and equipped to perform an aerial rescue without delay (see AFAG leaflet 402 Aerial tree rescue)." Apparently their own research uncovered a culture of 'groundies' having the ticket but very little climbing experience, if any at all. GGCP (Guide to Good Climbing Practice 'suggests' practice of AR every 3 months, if the man (or woman) 'in the white wig' gets hold of this in the event of an aerial accident, and you haven't, you'll have some explaining to do. Secondly, First Aid requirements are that it should be 'relevant to the risks' (here he goes again!). Hence whilst you're standard 'SJA' training may meet the HSE min. requirements, as they're HSE regsitered, is it 'relevant'?...you're decision (there are specific industry FA trainers out there worth a look). Also HSE recommend 'annual refrehers' (1 day) which I've never known anyone do...BUT it seems a 'bloomin good idea'! Lastly, AR provision is something we 'major on' as part of the worksite audit for AAAC status and too often this is not up-to-scratch and staff are unprepared and the rescue scenario is unplanned = direct contravention to W@H Regs. (anorak!) And lastly, lastly, question often asked as the AFAG states "on the ground" is what about 2 climbers in the tree = YES, absolutely, HSE acknowledge this is good method. Cheers all.. Paul

In answer to your first question, is a SG ticket essential = NO. Although NPTCs are available, as with wood-chippers, the test you need to satisfy is that of 'adequate training' and not a 'certificate of competence', altho clearly you have to be competent. Hence a Lantra Awards ITA (Integrated Training and Assessment) Certificate is fine or evidence of other 'adequate training'. Q.2 = possibly, it would be useful when applying for another job as it not only shows evidence of adequate trainining', that said you/your employer need to ensure this for each type you use, AND that you are/were competent in it's use. Plus if the opposition don't have a 'ticket', even tho not essential, it mayu be the factor that clinches the deal/job. Cheers.. Paul