AA Teccie (Paul)

As a matter of interest did you 'sub' for the companies prior to the AA approval? If so, then that's fine as some businesses do 'sub-in' expertise as they need it...it's about managing that effectively. Also, respectfully, and whilst the climber clearly has an important role to play, there is a lot more involved, including on the worksite and other operatives work activities and knowledge etc. The assessment system is effective, on the whole, and more robust than previously and that will hopefully become even more so going forward.

If this came to our attention, and with good evidence / supporting statements etc., we would investigate it robustly and take action as appropriate.

Yes

Just a quick one to say, as anticipated, and certainly in the short-medium term (relatively, meaning 5-10 yrs maybe), we are aware, anecdotally, the industry hasn't embraced / engaged with the '2 rope working' (which, AAMOI is one option in achieving the use of a back-up system...but others are available) in the whole. HSE, as the regulator, have insisted on this, they actually wanted '2 ropes' at all times so other options equating to a backup system is a concession that we pushed for and that's what's written into the industry ICOP and TG1. Simplistically they saw IRATA as setting then benchmark and require us as an industry, collectively, to reach a comparable safe system of working...in their eyes. I don't climb these days but I do understand the resistance, and the rationale / reasons, I really do, but equally I have seen contractors / climbers who've embraced it and work effectively and efficiently, okay maybe a little slower but arguably a lot safer...arguably. AA TG1 is a priced publication, some claw-back for the funds invested in writing it, and the ICOP, but the associated Safety Guide (AFAG 401 / 401 replacement) which gives some insight is a free download Arboricultural Association - Arboricultural Association Safety Guides WWW.TREES.ORG.UK A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons. ATB and 1, 2 ..or 7 ropes, keep safe. Cheers Paul

FWIW, my technical critique would be: - not to BS3998 / 'rule of thirds' / target pruning accuracy (generally) - height reduction 'heavier' than lateral reduction - lateral reduction unbalanced The above said, Sycamore, being 'opposite buds', is always more difficult to CR than some other species, e.g. Beech, and we don't know what the specification was. Cheers, Paul

What 'KateH' says above, and try to go residential for the 2-3 days if possible / feasible so you can spend time reading and digesting the course material and discussions from the day in the evenings. Good luck, Paul

Pillar apple maybe (Malus tshonoskii)

As an employer you are also required to undertake periodic health surveillance for HAVS, see: Hand arm vibration - Health surveillance WWW.HSE.GOV.UK

It does look like lichen as Stubby says but maybe check for Beech scale too Beech scale WWW.RHS.ORG.UK Beech scale produces a grey-white waxy powder which can be obvious on beech trees. This does little harm to the...

Bacterial wetwood / slime flux maybe, at least in part. It doesn't look like typical HC Bleeding Canker but a different agent is involved now which may affect symptoms to some extent (see below) Bleeding canker of horse chestnut: Symptoms - Forest Research WWW.FORESTRESEARCH.GOV.UK Detailed descriptions of bleeding canker symptoms in horse chestnut trees, with pictures.

Even though you passed, and passed well (congrats), if you think you could have done better there's still an 18% improvement opportunity (check your pass rate for the actual inspection and see if any scope for improvement there...but sounds it will be very little if so.) I thought the pass rate these days was +50% as generally people are better prepared...generally (when I used to deliver it when it first was released it was only about 1/3rd as you suggest.) It's good you found it taxing, makes it more worthwhile and deserves a beer or two to celebrate. Well done.. Paul

Similar but different (see https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/761/FCRN008.pdf )

When I was a former TO, with a senior highways engineer who loved trees ("phew"), we quite successfully 'ramped-over' rootplates where the existing (level) tarmac surface had lifted / cracked. This was done in the knowledge it would need to be re-done on circa 5years time but that was viewed as acceptable (there are now many more flexible resin-bonded surfaces available but don;t know if they'd meet highways spec requirements (LTOA did a research project on these, or similar, and published it, check their website. In terms of issuing disclaimer to remove liability I don;t think that's an option unfortunately I had the pleasure of visiting Seattle many years ago and they had many raised footpaths, that you stepped up and down from, bridging, in effect, tree rootplates...not very wheel-chair / pram friendly but meant the trees remained (a comment, not a suggestion Good luck Paul PS the partial compromise with the Highways was that we removed most 'flowering cherries' from verges which decimated adjacent tarmac / slabbed footways, as they do, but most were very mature and heavily cankered anyway so no big loss...and we replaced with something more suitable.

anaerobic conditions, i.e. no or little oxygen present, is not conducive to fungal activity / decay development (water doesn't cause decay in live wood.) Hence water filled is good...until you dip your hand in there by accident Re-the crown reduction spec, BS3998 suggest that a 30% crown volume reduction is approx. equivalent to a 12% linear reduction (hence 40% could be upto 15% linear, I think) BUT the standard advocates a measured reduction, e.g. CR height by 4m and spread by 2m OR CR to finished height of 16m by spread 12m - this is just an example (in theory TPO'd trees should be spec'd / consented by the latter, finished dimensions, so the LPA can measure what you've done / left behind, rather than what you've taken off. Hoping the above makes sense. Cheers, Paul

Sorry I've only scanned previous posts on thie topic but offer the following comment. The work activity in general does pose a risk to others including ground staff and landowners / MoPs and property, and hence I do not believe the 'self-employed' exemption applies. Also, although self-employed, you are not carrying out the work activity alone either. The HSE refer to the industry as 'inherently dangerous' and recent fatality rates support that unfortunately. Obviously I'm not the regulator (the HSE) and hence the above is my opinion / interpretation but I'm pretty sure they would say the same. Lastly, and I'm well aware that many climbers are still using a single rope, but many others have now adapted to twin-rope working (use of a backup system) and are doing so effectively and proficiently. Cheers, Paul

Many / most progress into consultancy from tree surveying / inspecting so I would focus on this in the near future and, ideally, get the PTI under your belt too. Masters is ambitious, but 'fair play', L6 would be achievable and a natural progression. Lots of opportunities to increase knowledge prior, including here, and many short courses / workshops etc. (have a look at our website along with FC / ICF etc.) Good luck and, actually, some time "on the tools", selectively, i.e. where you can do, or observe, the 'autopsy' when diseased trees are felled, is really valuable IMHO. Arboricultural Association - Training & Events WWW.TREES.ORG.UK Professional training courses and workshops for Tree Surgeons, arborists and consultants. A wide range of Tree...

Whilst, generally, "less is more", i.e. BS3998 (but the customer often won't agree) it's reasonable to assume it will tolerate a repeat performance, i.e. "a bit of a pollard" as you describe. Being deciduous, generally late Spring / early Summer would be best time to prune, and/or phase the work, if you have any concerns perhaps (obviously need the client 'on board' for this as extra time / costs involved.) Such a shame to reduce a SC but if it's been done before then the way is paved. ATB Paul

Ian, if it's in the nether regions, as opposed to stomach / umbilical(?), when you cough or sneeze (even worse) you'll know...that' s my experience anyway and Doc confirmed it.

Hi Jules, I hope you're well. My interpretation of the Planning Portal is that the dead tree 5-day rule applies equally to TPOs and CAs What other types of tree work do not require a section 211 notice? A section 211 notice is not required where the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree is permissible under an exception to the requirement to apply for consent under a Tree Preservation Order. This is only my interpretation, not a definitive statement. Of course it may be that Scotland legislation differs.

The RPA issue is incidental, with the exception of possible Planning Conditions (to be checked), so provided no TPOs and not Conservation Area, and you have the owners consent, you can proceed. The 5-day rule applies to 'dead trees' only I believe. If TPO'd - Trees deemed 'dangerous', presenting an imminent safety issue, can be removed under the exception (but the onus si upon you to prove this if challenged) but most will follow the normal TPO application route. Hope this helps. Paul

I frequently see those "less safe" features on site, even on AC assessments, AND the associated PUWER sheet all ticked and shiny The argument with the 'sticker' being about safety is for those who wouldn't wear hearing / eye protection without the prompt perhaps, i.e. not professional users who are trained and qualified (and hopefully competent.) The greatest chainsaw safety feature is the 'COMPETENT' operator...advancing technology can/will help, but we ignore that at our peril. TTFN Paul

The customer is not obliged to follow the TO request to withdraw the notice of intent. The only formal mechanism the TO can use to prevent removal of the tree is a TPO, which should be served before 6 weeks from formal notification to the LPA (this date is usually advised on the acknowledgment letter.) As a matter of professional courtesy, I would advise the TO is informed of the intention to continue to remove the tree.

Hi Will, tbf I haven't really followed the thread so i can't really comment meaningfully. In terms of DIY'ers buying or hiring chainsaws, as long as there's a market for it, its always going to be there. We need to concentrate on the professional users where we can influence good practice and make chainsaw operations safer (I used one ground-based and aerially for circa 10 years and never had an accident / cut injury...good luck or good practice? (the latter I believe, BUT toppers weren't around back then.)) Cheers, Paul

My understanding of the situation is that insurance companies would only be alerted if a claim for injuries was made, i.e. employers liability insurance for employees (including sub-contractors.) HSE would only be alerted if a report was made under RIDDOR, again an employer responsibility. Cheers Paul

I think the general presumption is "like for like, at the same site" unless stipulated otherwise in the TPO consent notice.