AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Ian, in part because they can, and because other sectors of the industry do already so demo'ing it can be done (these are their comments.) Plus, fundamentally, and perhaps simplistically, as several of the accidents they cited involved anchor point failures, the more safe-gaurds the better. regarding rescue situations, arguably you may have more options availbale to you...appen. Hope your're well.. Paul

I understand your frustrations, believe me, but, in effect, the law says so..

Fair comment Kevin but HSE, I expect, will be pragmatic in their application of the changes.

This reply troubles me. This change is imposed by HSE, consequentially to our consultation on TG1, we resisted it and did all we could to demo that current systems, if employed correctly, are safe. We are an industry body / trade association 'they'are the regulator = TOP TRUMPED!

Hi Kevin, I think the context is out of kilter here a little. The 'example' relating to MEWPs is to demonstrate that as industry approach / practice changes so does machinery and equip,emt to reflect such. I acknowledge accidents happen involving MEWPs happen too but hopefully as they become better designed to tree work that will reduce. Yep, if you wanna be compliant from tomorrow = 2 ropes to climb. Sorry, rushed reply as my Horlicks going cold.. Paul

A valid point Ed and one we are contiuning dialogue with HSE on, not that we expect them to change their opinion but it may help future decisions.

We consulted HSE on a draft of TG1 (climbing guide replacement) and they picked up on it there in relation to SRT effectively being 'rope-access' and thereby requiring a backup/safety line at all times (as per W@H regs) and then reviewed single rope climbing as well referring back to 2004 research (which concluded 2 ropes...unless risk assessment says higher risk, which was never implemneted.) We did demo day for HSE inc their W@H specialist to show how we access and work safely on single lines, with 2nd attcahcment when working, but they weren't happy. Sorry Mick, longwinded reply Paul

Yes Mick, I am saying that...because that is what the HSE have decreed. Much of the utility industry sector already operates this way.

the HSEhave had very detailed demonstrations by the industry prior to making a decision about what systems are acceptable / compliant and what aren't. Effectively, when working, you will still require to have an additional 'tie in', i.e. a 3rd connection...thats gonna be hard to stomach.

Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases. In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months. Does this help clarify things...a little? Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well Paul

Mick, why do you always have an aggressive tone to your posts....maybe it's that French militant effect I too would suggest 'Parish Mags' etc....and of course ARB Approval to "stand out from the tree surgery crowd" who provide the other x7 quotes PS Was in Pontivy, Brittany at the weekend, a lovely town (don't know whereabouts you are tho.)

Take it you're all aware of the 'Haynes' manual, and not the one for your Ford Escort XR3i...or Morris Marina (my first one ) See Arboricultural Association - Haynes Tree Owners’ Workshop Manual WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members... Authored by Tony Kirkham (Kew) and Kenton Rogers (i-Tree)

Hopefully you've got a land-based college nearby with a good 'arb' library

Yep, usually in junction with a land based college, eg Capel Manor, but sometimes utilising alternative training providers. informally, many businesses develop people “on the job” n some larger employers, eg Gristwood n Toms, have their own in house training n development procedures. paul

Possibly. My concern would be that the original rooting system has asphyxiated / died off because of the raised ground levels and the 'new' roots are sustaining the tree Can you construct a raised bed and retain them maybe Paul

Swedish Whitebeam (Sorbus 'intermedia', a cross between rowan and whitebeam)...I think

How bizarre is that (seen likewise.) Whilst sure it will also succumb in time, the FC talk about the wide genetic variations of Ash in the UK and the associated hope that some will be resistant

FISA (UK), by virtue of one of their members having a related accident, have issued some guidance relating to tree felling operations (see attached.) We are currently working up some guidance for aerial works...which generally says 'use a MEWP' where there's any concerns about tree safety / wood integrity (something we are trying to get further 'scientific' information about from FERA/DEFRA/FC but, anecdotally, it would appear the disease makes an already fairly brittle tree potentially even more so.) Safety Guidance Note - Felling dead ash - April 2018.pdf

Ash Dieback Action Plan Toolkit WWW.TREECOUNCIL.ORG.UK plus lots of stuff on FC website...albeit more general.

Whilst, on the face of it, there is a (financial) 'conflict of interest' in the employer undertaking the equipment inspections ("thorough examinations,) assuming he/she is competent and qualified so to do, they are also the 'duty holder' with the ultimate responsibility for H&S in the business. I don't believe either the LOLER Regs. themselves, nor the associated ACOP (Approved Code of Practice) refers to the 'competent person' (CP) requirements, it is the associated guidance that does (still better to be adhered to of course.) As far as the ArbAC Scheme is concerned, where the employer is said 'CP' we require a process of appeal (to an independent 3rd party) to be put in place and, generally, advise they check their insurer is happy with the arrangement. Cheers, Paul

You need to be properly assessed by a Occupational Health Specialist (OHS) and probably at Doctor level (Tier 4)...and who is competent in HAVS, respectfully not a GP. Gloves are helpful but mainly because they keep hands warm, improving blood circulation, rather than damping vibration. Battery powered machinery is the way forward. Regards, Paul

An alternative term I've come across is "crown restructuring" which you can't really argue with...but similarly that was more 'lopping' IMO, i.e. a (very) heavy reduction beyond any suitable secondary growth points but still leaving a framework for regeneration (I associate 'topping' being leaving a pole...generally speaking.) Timing = generally summer time is better as more time for the tree to respond and commence some sort of defense reaction...but there's undoubtedly nesting birds in that lot and possibly something more (bats?) Looks an awful job TBH so please allow 'more than' enough time as others have wisely said.

Hi Swinny, sorry I missed your post. I quite agree with your initial statement about plenty of good, competent, safe etc etc contractors working for LAs who aren't approved (by "the happy clappers club" ?) but then summat happened n you disappeared . Don't you agree tho that having a way of differentiating between you and those that aren't competent etc, and not necessarily the unscrupulous, would be beneficial to your business and the industry as a whole? I'm very happy to continue off forum, or directly (07971 995351,) should you wish to. Thanks.. Paul

Wish I could be more succinct Paul 'verbose' Smith

Hi Tom, £1.3m turn-over but only £47k surplus and the AA's range of activities is much wider than just the ARB Approved Contractor Scheme (which turns over circa £280k = £10k surplus, proportionately, for the scheme.) Whilst I'm open-minded to any / all suggestions how we can better / more effectively market and promote, in my mind there's no getting away from the fact we need to increase critical mass...so, "thank you" for helping with this. Paul