AA Teccie (Paul)

Whilst I acknowledge this situation is common place. ie climber being vehicle driver and often team leader, I'm not convinced its the best option. Would I really want to be a passenger in the van driven by a knackered climber after a long hard day in the tree, for a long haul back to Base...dunno. I wholly acknowledge , and agree with the B+E licence entitlement which is very valuable. Sorry, spanner in the works happen. Paul Sent from

All, perhaps to quell speculation here. The survey is resultant from the Coroner issuing a 'Prevention of Future Deaths' report to the industry / HSE and the chaps Father who is driving a campaign to 'consider' a possible engineering solution / control. There is no underlying proposal to ban 'toppers'...or certainly not as far as we are aware. Cheers all, Paul

Hi there, just a "heads up" that not all industry specific training providers market their courses using the '+F' suffix, i.e. Forestry, (which is an FC requirement.) Obviously therefore better to choose one who does if it is an FC job but otherwise a course marketed as 'First Aid for Treeworkers' or similar will equally do the job. Scotland - Greg Sutherland - ARBAID offers it too Manchester - ABC Response in Oldham. There are several others out there too. Also St John have tailored a course for Agriculture & Forestry but I don't know if that carries the '+F' suffix. Cheers, Paul

FEES: Candidates who are members of ISA and their local chapter or associate organization receive an exam discount. If the exam is an ISA chapter- or associate organization-sponsored exam, the fee is $170 USD for members and $280 USD for nonmembers. In addition to the exam fee, there is a computer-based testing administrative fee of $125 USD for those who elect the computer-based option. The administrative fee applies each time a computer-based exam is scheduled. See also the attached. Sorry, whilst we are assisting in facilitating the exams, the administration and payments etc. are done direct with the ISA. Cheers, Paul cert_Application_CertifiedArborist.pdf

I concur with all the above positive comments about the ISA CA having previously completed the study guide process myself. The 'current' version is far superior to the old one and we can supply it if you're interested (it's £75 + £4.50 p&p...a bargain really.) See Arboricultural Association - Arborists' Certification Study Guide Cheers, n "good luck".. Paul PS Although the qualification is designed to be 'self-studied', obviously, and is very well structured and presented so to do, we are looking into the viability of delivering it is a facilitated course of study for those who prefer that 'style' of learning, i.e. within a group. "Watch this space" if this is of interest.

Problem is it often doesn't look "poorly" (in the crown) ...n you commonly see decay in stems Ignorance is bliss Paul

Hi Ben, I would suggest that "word of mouth" is everything, well certainly very important and particularly in the domestic sector and when just starting out, so maybe try to kick start this with an ad in a few local parish mags etc (usually cheap and keeping travel to a minimum.) Keep any advertising simple and to the point and find your 'USP'...which may just be your natural charm n persona Good luck, Paul PS Others, far better qualified to advise, will hopefully follow here...if only to say what I've said is nonsense

Hi David, not that I'm particularly familiar with, nor particularly know an awful lot about SRT but it is mentioned, albeit briefly, in Sect. 2.9.3 of the ICoP (copy attached.) The Association is in the process of reviewing and updating the technical guides, including tree climbing and access, and this will give more guidance when it's completed (end 2017.) Regards, Paul ICoP_TreeWorkAtHeight-090215.pdf

Incidental - listed buildings are sometimes with Conservation Areas, in my experience, and hence could be if within the property curtilage (or indeed outwith.) The 'covenants' issue is a good one and worthy of inquiry / investigation. Paul

Hi there, depends what you mean by "your kit" which could, potentially, include chainsaws / hedge trimmers etc. etc. but as far as PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is concerned the relevant safety guides (see attached) give a good steer. REMEMBER though as a 'hazard control' , PPE is a last resort, true safety is about what you do and how you do it, i.e. your safe working practices. Cheers, Paul FISA-AA-301-Petrol-driven-chainsaws.pdf afag401.pdf

Perhaps a tad easy to be dismissive here..."how ridiculous" but having been a TPO TO in a previous life I'm very well aware of the impact this problem can have on people's enjoyment of their garden / patio etc., usually combined with the problems and nuisances of living near such a big tree, e.g. needles falling and blocking gutters etc. etc. So I think you're right to seek a solution, albeit never found one, or at least to mitigate the effects. The practicalities of what you're proposing with spikes may be a limiting factor as they'll simply move to the next branch...above. Ultimately "moving house", a seemingly very extreme measure, might be the only absolute solution...till the next owner of course. Those who are thinking, we they bought the house knowing...etc etc, remember the LPA, responsible for both development and tree protection, approved the layout and hence I don't consider they can be simply dismissive on these grounds as they've contributed to the problem. Sorry, just a load of pointless waffle really... TTFN.. Paul (just about to head of to the Emerald Isle fer a coupla days...perks of the job.)

Whoever implied that Mr Humphries? Actually so do I, and better that I stick to it (H&S management) me thinks as clearly me n fungi, or rather fungi id, aren't symbiotic! Cheers David, I hope yer well. PS "Just between me n you", I was quite disappointed here as KD is one of the few fungi I felt fairly confident in id'ing

The HSE have some guidance on this but, TBH, in many/most instances you can swing either way in terms of applicable or not. Hence as far as the AAAC scheme is concerned we've made it mandatory to cover both the employees, including self-employed people, and the employer. Doubtless some will concur with the insurers view, as money to be saved, but I'd be very cautious here and probably insist they had personal accident cover at least. Not surprisingly I'm in the "get it" camp Cheers, Paul

Hmmm, can see why you'd think that, as I did initially, but I don't think it is, neither do I think it's Chondrostereum. So, what do I think it is...dunno sorry Where's that MR Humphries when you need him? Adopting a watching brief.. Paul

Fair comment, point noted. Thank you. Paul

Kevin, respectfully, I'm not going to get drawn here. There are procedures to be followed and they will be. Regards, Paul

We are advised it is still under investigation, presumed with the HSE. That will need to conclude before we can investigate. Regards, Paul

Your tree, your responsibility Tom. The Utility company have a responsibility to "keep the line clear" for supply, usually by doing the minimum work necessary, albeit they will undertake tree removals in some instances if the work is so drastic it disfigures the tree or renders it unsafe. It looks a wonderful tree, a Coast Redwood?, granted I don't have to endure its nuisances but please think it through carefully and take good advice...doubtless someone will be along shortly to offer exactly such. Regards, Paul

Planning conditions, often used to retain peripheral trees and hedgerows during the development process, probably in part as a screen, if not discharged, usually by a time limit, e.g. 5 years, can remain indefinitely (albeit suggestions are that after 5 years they would be difficult to enforce.) You are quite correct that the 'tool the LPA should use to secure long term retention of trees is the TPO (this however is more time consuming and bureaucratic.) Just some thoughts.. Paul

Only option is to formally object, if there's sufficient reason, and within 28 days. Otherwise an application to remove, again with suitable reasons...but then sure you were aware of that anyway. Cheers Paul

Hi Kev, I don't think the species "has to be mentioned", albeit they usually are dependent upon what kind of TPO, i.e. individual = yes I would expect it, group = probably, area / woodland = probably not. I think it probably comes down to how enforceable the order would be in the event of a breach / prosecution. If the tree is clearly identifiable from the other information present I would follow normal protocols, ie. contact the TO. It is disappointing not to be more specific though. Cheers, Paul

:thumbup1: ...sounds a good option.

Hi John, sorry not the "quick-fix" you're looking for but some useful info / guidance here Risks to young people at work n if you have existing generic risk assessments you could add a line in there citing additional / close supervision which is a primary control, after selecting only suitable tasks of course. Cheers, Paul