AA Teccie (Paul)
-
Posts
3,538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by AA Teccie (Paul)
-
Hi Matty, Approved Contractor is an increasingly recognized industry benchmark / standard, available to, AND achievable by, any business (regardless of size.) Hence it can help reassue the client organization in achieving compliance and competence and meeting their "due diligence" responsibilities. If you were an AC you would doubtless think differently and expect the AA to do everything it can to increase use of the scheme / standard (an obvious statement I know but contractor members pay a lot of money annually, albeit "good value" I hope, for the AA to "bang the Approved Contractor drum" where it can. The FC, in general, is a supporter of the AA / AAAC Scheme. Cheers Paul PS As a matter of interest, FC contracts are worded with the "...or equivalent" clause so it may be open to discussion.
-
Thanks for your post and I agree it is absolutely a step in the right direction. Apologies, there will not be another ICoP consultation as the changes, in effect, place less of a burden on the operator / climber, plus it would further delay the production of the redrafted Technical Guide, i.e. what compliance should look like in practice. As an industry your comments have been most valuable in the AA and the authors "changing tack", and in consultation with IRATA who have been very helpful, regarding the application of the (W@H) regulations. Thank you all. The issue certainly is moving forward and several manufacturers and suppliers were at the event yesterday and challenged with 'researching and developing' equipment to help us so do. Thanks again.. Paul
-
Morning Matty, Sorry I'm not sure...if Mr Graham's around he's the person to ask about all goings on up north. Your point is correct in that the client, and usually the FC are pretty hot on it, still needs to supervise work activities at the point of service delivery, including checking operator competences and experience, and if they have concerns to flag them up (firstly to the company to reply / address and if continues then to us.) I too have concerns about the sustainability / environmental impact of contractors travelling many miles to work when perhaps there's an opportunity to set up a supply chain thereby avoiding such, ideally AAAC to AAAC Cheers, Paul
-
Hi Jim, the FC Contract is a bone of contention for several AAACs who are on the framework but have had no work at all in 3-4 years The is significant regional variation on use of / reference to AAAC by the commercial sector and this is often influenced by the nos. locally / regionally so whenever you;re ready to step back into the scheme, and bring a few of the other good eggs along, we'll do what we can to educate the clients of the benefits Thanks for your kind words and "ditto". ATB Paul
-
Hi Matty, as there is no longer a 'UK & I' Chapter of the ISA no, in that context. However, many previous ISA Committee Members, and doubtless many ISA Certified Arborists, have responded to the consultation for which we are most grateful. Further comments were received from around the world tbh and doubtless other ISA Chapter Reps did respond. Cheers, Paul
-
Hi Pete, if by 'review' you mean further industry consultation then there is no proposal for such. The main changes relate to the issues in my previous post about definitions and interpretations relating to the W@H regulations and Schedule 5 which actually places less of a burden on industry (not sure that's an appropriate phrase when talking about H&S). Cheers, Paul
-
The meeting was generally positive and "the realities of the job" and staying commercially viable were highlighted to HSE but they highlighted the number accidents (major injuries and fatalities) which, simplistically, 'top trumped' our stance to some respects. Bottom line it is for the industry to find a solution to the issues cited which meets the principles of the W@H regulations but a very positive move is labelling tree climbing, whether static or moving ropes, or in combination, as 'personal fall protection systems', appropriately, thereby avoiding the further higher level requirements of 'work positioning', a term previously commonly used, and ;rope access' (apologies if this is a bit detailed but it is important on a regulatory level.) To conclude I would say there is "still work to be done" rather than "battles to be had"...another positive! Thanks... Paul
-
aaaaagggghhhh, kinda. However, the interpretation of the word 'practicable' in this context = wherever possible BUT it does not necessarily mean "2 ropes" as previously thought, although that may be an option in some cases (it is anticipated there will be 'omissions' from the "primary line + backup system" (2 lines) requirement, e.g. change-overs on ascent (ie short duration) but this has yet to be agreed / confirmed with HSE. Hence please keep an open mind...but keep safe first using tried and tested techniques / systems. Cheers, Paul
-
Hi Jamie, The ICoP is still being revised in light of recent meetings with HSE after feedback from industry. We anticipate the final version will be released in April...2020! This will hopefully coincide with release of the redrafted Technical Guide 1 Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue which will replace the previous AA Guide to Good Climbing Practice. Hope this helps.. Paul
-
Fair comment Kevin, and thank you...however it is not until more small businesses become Approved that the "greater presence in the public domain" will be achieved (the comparison being 'public domain' awareness of 'GAS SAFE' or 'Fensa' for instance which has largely been achieved by people seeing stickers / logos on vans not by anything GAS SAFE or Fensa have done....and they are much, much larger organisations than we are tbf.) Hope you're well.. Paul
-
Hi Jamie, I have read the vast majority of posts and I’m very well aware of the many valid issues cited. Thanks Paul
-
Thank you Will. I can assure you it has been communicated, albeit perhaps not so eloquently. If the opportunity arises, and it is needed, I will endeavour to repeat it. Cheers, Paul
-
Jamie, thank you. Your points are valid and very well made and I can assure you have been communicated to HSE and doubtless will be again on Tuesday. Cheers, Paul
-
The meeting has been called by the Chair of the AWG and hence is 'open' to AWG Members...which is open to all AA Members...which is open to all working in the industry, and beyond. We will let you / 'the industry' know what's happening once we have things completely agreed / 'nailed down' in writing and with HSE endorsement, as is our intention, but we're not quite there yet Thanks again for engaging here and I sincerely hope we can issue an update very soon. ATB, Paul
-
I can absolutely assure you we have been working tirelessly subsequent to the ICoP feedback (thank you all.) The meeting on Tuesday is an AA AWG (Arborist Working Group) event arranged by the Chair and I can also absolutely reassure you "your views" will be very well presented / represented to HSE, and in fact have already been so. I will feedback further as soon as I am able. Thanks for your (further) patience. Paul / AA.
-
Hi Kriss and I really don’t mind about “bearing the brunt” tbf, somebody has to / should do, but thank you for acknowledging such. I too struggled with 3-strand coiling n then loved multiplatt but plucked like hell However, Bottom line HSE have absolutely got their teeth into the WaH issue and our aim is to find a ‘workable solution’...which may be 2 ropes in some instances and other solutions, some perhaps not yet with us, in others. More to come... ATB Paul
-
Hi Timon, not to pre-empt anything but the WaH Regs require use of a back-up or safety line, which HSE is now insisting upon, but this can probably be satisfactorily achieved via many routes / mechanisms...including 2-ropes. regards and hope you’re well Paul
-
Sorry, I’m not doing very well here The ONLY ‘comment’ opportunity is on the draft document as per the current consultation. Thereafter, once revised and finalised it will be a done deal, in effect. Hence imperative to comment now! thanks..
-
That’s the purpose of the current ICoP consultation (see above), ie to comment on the revised document ‘before’ it is finalised. Thanks in anticipation Paul
-
Hi and thanks for your post...and for completing the ICoP questionnaire. To clarify, once revised and completed (the ICoP,) the associated 'Technical Guide - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue' will be reviewed and issued out for consultation too. This guide is aimed at the end users, i.e. the climbers, and includes images etc. Regards, Paul
-
-
Evening all, a point of clarification if I may. The ICoP is a management tool and sets out principles for work plans (at height) to be developed. Shortly, and after review and (probable) revision of the ICoP consultation, the associated Technical Guidance, i.e. "the detail", will be produced and issued to industry for consultation. Hence "watch this space" . Thanks, n regards Paul
-
PLEASE reply to the ICoP consultation! Thank you Paul
-
Please all respond to the ICoP consultation, the responses from which will be fed back to HSE. Thank you. Paul
-
Hi Joe, we are still in dialogue with HSE and it is imperative “the industry” responds to the ICoP consultation. thank you Regards paul
