AA Teccie (Paul)

As you say you had to take off more than you would have liked = "best of a bad job" (NOT to infer it's a bad job just quite 'heavy', partic. on the r'/hand stem for some reason.) As a matter of interest, or not as the case may be , if this was presented on an ArbAC assessment I'd request to see something 'lighter' BUT I would pass it as a second example as long as there's adequate justification (remember that's what BS3998 requires of us.) Hope these comments to be useful. Cheers Paul

Naaa, deffo Blackthorn...so 'Sloe Gin' instead, hic

Hmmm, can you 'layer' the hedge first maybe Think I'll leave this thread now and return to my nice, warm office. Paul

Good point, was really referring to their fruits...but shudda said that of course Cheers.. Paul

Good point, partic if TPO'd as that's what the '1APP' guidance requires (see attached....can't believe this was Sept. 2008...OMG!!!) Inevitably, well almost, if done correctly, CR will include a degree of CT. Cheers Paul 080930-Guidance for standard application form-protected.pdf

PHEW...that's a relief The two, Malus and Prunus (some). and Crataegus (some) are often hard to ID I find, I guess all being in the Rosacea family tis understandable. Cheers.. Paul

From a MEWP....somehow? sorry Harry, never had to so just a thought out loud. good luck.. Paul

Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) me thinks. The first hedgerow tree to flower and saw it doing so whilst near Barcham's in Cambridge yesterday. Paul

Excellent..."keep me posted!" Cheers...n keep up the good work:thumbup1: Paul

Good job ...but 20-30% of what, i) height, ii) crown volume, or iii) crown linear. It looks to me like CR by 1.5m (approx.) When can I expect your 'ARB Approved Contractor' application? Thanks for posting.. Paul

Sorry, "confused.com", is that not down to how you use the 'strop / lanyard'? Cheers.. Paul

ALL, 'thank you' for this excellent thread, most informative and 'CPD' in action Best(est) regards and BIG cheers.. Paul

Hi all, BUMP...crash, bang, wallop..! PLEASE be sure to let us know, i.e. [email protected], or at least me directly, i.e. 'pm' me, that you wish to attend this event as it's looking a little "up in the air" at the moment so we need confirmations ASAP please. Thanks all.. Paul

VERY helpful, and encouraging as 'pragmatic' We like your summary so we'll take that please Thanks for this really useful info. Paul

Interestingly an FC employee summed this up at a recent HSE gig (coincidental) saying whilst cutting in the tree FISA doesn't apply but when on the ground it would...."therein lies madness." I would hope, being pragmatic, provided your Lantra / C&Gs (NPTC) training is current, i.e. within the recommended 5 years, they would accept this...and your First Aid had '+F' of course. Cheers.. Paul

A very good point and well worth checking...however I would hope not as it isn't mandatory. I guess it perhaps depends upon the individual circumstances. As with many things complying with H&S and Regs etc whilst required for legal reasons, and to satisfy HSE/EA/VOSA etc., it's often the insurance industry who have greater controls / effects. Good post. Cheers.. Paul

Yeah, sorry, my point is I don't believe HSE are behind it, it is the industry themselves who have both identified the need and introduced it. Nothing to do with HSE. And as you quite rightly say it's the FORESTRY sector and not ARB. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, I don't believe this to be correct, certainly not in light of my conversations with HSE enquiring whether a 'precedent' had been set for the arb industry (thankfully the answer was 'NO' in respect of mandatory chainsaw refreshers BUT it does highlight the issue of refresher / update training generally.) It is my understanding that it is the Forest Industry sector themselves, and nothing to do with HSE, who have collectively decreed that refresher training will be mandatory given their poor accident / incident rate. REMEMBER also the refresher training you receive will need to be via FISA to be accepted on FI sector land and Lantra won't be accepted...I don't believe. The current problem seems to be accessing the FISA specific training as they're trainer network is quite variable nationally. Hoping this to help in clarifying the situation...a little. Cheers all.. Paul

Would it be feasible to use a scissor lift type MEWP with a pole-chainsaw, partic if you can work both sides? Just a thought...doubtless others will have (very) different ones Cheers, n hope it goes well. Paul

Hi Michael, IS the compression on top? Did you try cutting all the way through from the top? On large rings we often used to pop a plastic wedge on top to stop it closing and trapping. To be honest there are many (most) far more current, and competent, than I who will be along to better advise shortly. Just one other thing though, wearing my H&S Manager's hat, is it safe to be working alone undertaking this operation, particularly as an inexperienced operative? (REMEMBER AFAG/FISA 301 says chainsaw operators should not normally work alone, and definitely not if remote working!) This may effect your insurance if you come unstuck, i.e. get injured / harmed, whilst trying to free a jammed saw. Please take care. Cheers.. Paul

Apologies Julian, I meant to say 'last' para. Your reply explains exactly your concerns...would the words 'ARB Approved' do?...if so give me a call. Your proposal for the structure of industry bodies is interesting but as you intimated previously there is much history and politics to be considered. Thanks for your time here. Paul

Hi Julian, the Association (AA), been around in since 1964, has developed with the industry over time and hence is a very "broad-church" type organisation seeking to address the needs of all its members, be they contractors / consultants / tree officers / tree managers etc. etc. Whether it does this well is for the members to decide and "vote with their feet", so to speak, at the AGM. I do however agree (my personal view) that the industry is too fragmented and the major 'bodies' should / could agree a clear structure for the benefit of the industry and those working within it (this, 'organisation,' landscape is now quite different to what it was when I joined the industry in 1985.) Forgive me for protracting the conversation here, and apologies if I've misinterpreted (as I did with the Sect. 2 / 2.4 quote), but do the first and last sentence of the para above contradict to some degree...or is it that you're making the point anyone can set up as a tree surgeon and does have to join any organisation? Thanks in anticipation.. Paul

Hi Julian, In reply to your points above: 1. Thank you...albeit I did so in retrospect, never ideal however well intended the original post was. 2. Trade Association 'v' Profession Body = an interesting debate and we seek to be both, albeit the ICF now offering 'Chartered Arboriculturist' status makes the debate even more interesting (my role is much more akin to the organisation as a Trade Association and hence that's where my responses normally lie.) 3. GN9 - Ts & Cs for Arbor. Consultancy Services does not specifically mention the conflict of interest scenario (as per the RICS statement) although I would suggest it is implied in Sect. 2 Consultants Obligations (2.4 states: "The Consultant acknowledges that the Consultancy Services are provided by the Consultant as an independent contractor and no relationship of employee/employer or agency arises with the Client.") This is further reinforced, implied again though, by citing the Consultant, if an AA member, is bound by the Codes of Ethics and Prof. Conduct (derived from ICF.) Hope this helps...but not sure it does. Regards.. Paul

Hi Adam, thank you for your useful comments here which are helpful. Re your last para, whilst 'symmetry' may be aesthetically pleasing, and 'client pleasing', BS3998 states it shouldn't be done as the norm when undertake CRs as one should work with the tree's natural shape and form...unless of course that forms part of the spec. Cheers Paul

Interesting observation and my initial reaction was 'no', because they're typical activities covered by an industry body. However, on reflection, you're quite right particularly with the accreditation schemes in assessing competence. My response here would be that it's the organisation itself, i.e. the Arb Assoc, who deliver the standards / information / training and then it's specific assessors, most of whom are external to the organisation, who 'check' the standards. (In practice it's often myself involved in both roles and yes I do offer advice and guidance alongside assessing businesses for ARB Approved, at least in the first instance, and I'm sure this happens with AA Registered Consultants scheme, but professional integrity and the AA codes, as I too am a member, come into play. Additionally the schemes assessors have a separate 'code of conduct' which they must abide by.) At the end of the day I'm satisfied that we do award ARB Approved Contractor status only to those business who demonstrate the required standards and levels of competence required. Thankfully not many these days as they're often much better prepared, but some businesses do still fail the assessment process. Thanks for the post and "food for thought", it's good to be challenged...just not too often please. Cheers.. Paul