AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi there - this may be of relevance / use (as technically anybody working on, or placing cones & signage on, the highway should be NRSWA qualified, including operating the chipper roadside etc.): NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Training - Unit 2 NRSWA-COURSES.CO.UK NRSWA Unit 2 Signing, Lighting and Guarding Operative Course UK Wide Regular Open Courses Run, or save money with In-House Courses Call Now!

Not aware of any direct correlation between the two factors (as Stubby has so eloquently stated, lol) but doubtless it is coincidental in some instances as pronounced buttress flair / fluting is a known characteristic of the species (at maturity) and, as they are 'poor' compartmentalizers, rot / decay is often present in the corresponding stem,section (particularly when they've been previously 'topped' (NOT pollarded!!! - see BS3998 Sect. 7.10) - a common practice.) Of course, in terms of significance, where prominent fluting / buttressing is present, the significance of any internal decay is likely reduced (often confined to the central core IME (albeit many years ago when I encountered the species more often.) Just "my thoughts" on the subject that concur with others....PHEW Cheers, Paul

FYI the one's I'm aware of, and commonly encounter, are: - Arb Pro - Papertrail - ARBM8 - ARB HUB plus others which don't have an arb specific application.

Arboricultural Association - Technical Guide 3: Rigging and Dismantling WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members...

Hi all, usual requirements - on a lead / under control (latter - both the dog(s) and the owner ) Look forward to seeing you there...hopefully in the sunshine. ATB Paul

Good morning Mark, et al - "in a nutshell", unfortunately, despite concerted efforts over the years trying to get CSCS to accept / recognise the NPTC qualifications card as an equivalency for CSCS card purposes we've had no success (whatsoever.) They haven't / won't consider our requests (in effect they've now added it as an additional requirement 'over-and-above' the ROLO H&S course and CSCS test, so perhaps they have given it recognition .) Essentially we're not a large enough industry sector to have sway and make them change so if you require CSCS cards to access work sites, which is essentially what it is, you need to engage with the process (done via BALI and the LISS Scheme (Landscape Industry.) Sorry all, really can't help here. Paul

A crane, in effect, presumably the SWL reduces with outreach. Need to think this one through carefully and perhaps a proper crane is the best / better solution. Coming at this from an industry guidance perspective - the MEWP as an anchor is contrary to TG5 (sect. 5.1.3l) , and therefore unwise as such, the use of a crane is a better option (TG4 Sect. 7.4), ideally used for tree crown access but short-duration(?) works suspended from the hook can be undertaken (ideally using a carrier / basket.) Maybe worth engaging an advisor to draw up a suitable RAMS etc. Go safe..

Much speculation, understandably, possible "contributory negligence" could be leveled at the injured party for not following published industry guidance which could affect any pay-out..."could!" (not would.) To the OP - I think it's a question for your insurer to hopefully give you peace of mind. ATB and 'stay safe' Paul

Arboricultural Association - Aerial Inspections: Guide to Good practice WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A source of publications, guidance notes and leaflets for arboriculturists. Competitively priced available to members and non-members.

reading opportunities (many) including: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-ash-dieback-in-england AshDieback-GuidanceNote-web.pdf The situation you describe is not uncommon and one would hope for pragmatic solutions with the LPA...good luck.

Two phrases come to mind..."in the dark", in many respects, and "in splendid isolation", the way many were before ARBTALK. I too have learned, and continue to learn, lots...and hope to occasionally give a little back. Thanks Steve, et al

🤝 n time to move on pls (hope the emoji thing is a handshake...apologies if not.) 😇 😂 ATB

Good morning, I represent the Arb Association here, an industry body / trade association (not a regulator), we seek to offer guidance to the industry to meet H&S regulations, including W@H (hence my response to the OP.) I do not represent the industry. Going forward, whilst I'm very happy to offer comment to help interpret current industry guidance, I'm not willing to engage further on non-associated matters. Thank you. Paul

I'm no legal expert but I do understand the basis of H&S regulations being H&S qualified. (Please don't be confused by my log-in remaining active, I don't usually log out of the site, perhaps I should.)

Two independent anchors should be used wherever possible, which is likely to be in most cases, but the guidance does allow for a shared anchor where 2 separate ones aren't available, i.e. the exception - two systems (primary & backup) on a suitable shared anchor is still deemed to be safer than a single system.

1. Industry guidance - has no direct legal status, that is contained in the Work at Height Regulations (but it is guidance endorsed by HSE, the workplace regulator.) 2. Some time ago. Not sure 'what else' I might have answered with. Paul

Hi John, "The rules" are detailed here https://www.trees.org.uk/News-Blog/Latest-News/Tree-work-at-height-–-Regulations-and-guidance Your method of work (climbing) would not meet the rules I'm afraid as, almost without exception, you need to have two separate systems at all times, ideally attached to two independent anchors. ATB Paul

Sorry, 'labour-only subcontractors'

PS just noticed I'm a Veteran Member ...when do I become 'Ancient' (anybody else there yet?)

BUT you could put one pair of socks on AND some leg-warmers and that would be fine, lol

Sorry, just to clarify, the first point applies equally to employees and self-employed people working for a business, i.e. it's not a case of "one rule for one and not for the other" (albeit often more difficult to get compliance.)

Thanks for your pragmatic post here. A couple of things in reply: - If your in climbing in the workplace then whilst your life might primarily be your responsibility, it is also your employers responsibility and hence they should ensure you operate in accordance with any current industry guidance, e.g. Technical Guide 1 - Sect. 6 (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-1-Tree-Climbing-Aerial-Rescue-en ) - This guidance, and from the associated industry code of practice, does not require the use of "two ropes", although that's how it's always interpreted AND often the solution businesses adopt (a 'belt-n-braces' approach to some extent, and the most suitable technique in many situations.) The guidance requires the use of a primary system (climbing rope) AND a backup system - this can be a 2nd rope, but can be the other-end of the same rope - can be a long adjustable lanyard - can be a belay system - can be a flip-line when sectioning down. Hence there is a range of options available (the example you mention, a smaller tree with congested crown (eg fastigiate hornbeam or whitebeam maybe) could be a climbing line plus lanyard e.g.) When cutting, a 3rd lanyard / anchor should be used to aid work positioning and/or where there may be a risk to the 'personal fall protection system' (the primary PLUS backup.) Technical Guide 2 - Sect. 9 (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-2-Use-of-Tools-in-the-Tree ) Hope this clarifies things a bit. ATB Paul

I'm not aware that Chris and Matt snapped any ropes load-testing the systems...probably a good job I didn't try tho..

FYI from the industry technical guide https://www.trees.org.uk/Book-Shop/Products/Technical-Guide-1-Tree-Climbing-Aerial-Rescue-en see below also: FYI