AA Teccie (Paul)

Not sure. Speak with Sarah at Head Office, the Training Coordinator, [email protected] who will hopefully be able to advise. Cheers Paul

On a previous, very similar thread, someone suggested: - tree surgeon = someone who knows how to do pruning cuts correctly.. - arborist = someone who knows "why" I kinda liked that but...I guess "5 Shires" post put pay to that Paul

Hi Ben, I think the simple answer is "no", however LPA/TO relations n all that. I guess the LPA send them out as a matter of routine to "the applicant" assuming they generally occupy the site...of course if your "the agent" this may not be convenient, as you say. You could always return them I guess Cheers, Paul

Hi there, not currently unfortunately, all are online...an option which is likely to remain post-pandemic. However, I would anticipate we will return to face-to-face training when possible and where demand requires it. I deliver the online training and whilst it is different, stating the obvious and after delivering many courses face-to-face previously, I'm satisfied the key message and information does get through. Tbh, "getting into the woods" with it is a post-course activity for yourself, ideally accompanied by a more experienced tree surveyor/inspector, even on f-t-f training the amount of time outdoors is limited. Hope you get something sorted...and maybe look forward to meeting you (virtually) at some stage in the future. ATB, Paul

The general view from HSE is that it is the employers responsibility to ensure an operative is competent, and capable, to perform whatever tasks / jobs are assigned. Training and qualifications can clearly help with this and PUWER Regs also support this. With non-UK workers you need to ensure competence in the first place, and document / record this, and within 12 months align them to the UK system, i.e. NPTC / Lantra. Your insurance company may have an opinion too, which may not align with the above unfortunately. Regards, Paul

Down to legal definitions, and interpretations to some extent..."Mr Mynors anyone" It is my understanding if a branch, or root, encroaches a boundary AND causes an actionable nuisance, e.g. impacts on the roof tiles, then LPA consent is not necessary to 'abate' said nuisance (but you can only undertake the minimum work necessary and I would recommend informing the LPA of your intentions.) However, I don't think this is the OP's point, I think the "permission" the LPA refer to here is to do with landowners/tree owners permission, i.e. not LPA consent. Lastly, as I understand it, 'informatives' are different to 'conditions' and perhaps they have mixed the two up (a common informative being about protected species / nesting birds.) Just my "ten-penneth".. Cheers Paul

Hi Ben, as I understand it you're required to have ISO9001 in place first, no bad thing commercially, and then 14001 is a pretty straight forward 'carry on' (as I think you're aware Mr Elcoat does this with/for many tree surgery clients.) Cheers.. Paul

Probably not generally, but reducing wind-loading by height/crown reduction may reduce some of the deflection / pressure on the wall...perhaps.

Hi, I think there are only 3 or 4 ISA Master Arborists in the UK currently. Hence, respectfully, I would suggest the value in the UK to be quite limited and would consider other qualification options more recognised here, e.g. ABC L4 Arb Dip or FdSc Arb, but they are much larger quals and hence much work / commitment is involved. Of course if you fancy USA or Canada, then go for it n "good luck" Paul

Obviously the "actual measurement" will vary dependent upon the stem dia. but 'metres' is the norm in my experience.

Hi there, when you say you've started up yourself, which is always an option and many good arborist have followed the same route and time + trial and error has developed them to where they are today, but if you can I would suggest trying to 'freelance' to other businesses to see a range of practices, probably good and bad (and indifferent) to build up your knowledge and experience. There are many education opportunities, full-time, part-time, short courses, online, webinars etc. etc. but "hands-on" experience and knowledge counts for so much. Maybe "take a punt" on here and say where you are and ask if anyone can offer you some days. Just my thoughts... Good luck with it, stay safe and enjoy.. Paul

Only, 'as a matter of interest', was the fence mentioned / included in the site risk assessment as a potential hazard etc. and, if so, did that mitigate your responsibility at all? If not, coz it was bl**dy obvious, do you feel it may have helped your cause if it was included? (benefit of hindsight n all that) Thanks.. Paul

They usually have their own climbing kit n pruning saw yeah...hence their own small tools. Tbh Ben I don't think you'll get 100% reassuring answer but the majority of businesses I deal with operate with freelancers as LOSCs. Cheers Paul

Hi Ben, Probably worth clarifying, but then I feel obliged to say that, but clause 7 = 'labour-only' subcontractor (LOSC) and clause 14 = 'bona-fide' subcontractor , with the 'freelancer' generally being LOSC. Further, and as I understand it, a 'contract of service' can include terms of engagement for a LOSC in the same way it would include an employee under an employment contract. Hope this helps and, if required, there is an alternative forum you can post on :0 Regards, Paul

To clarify, any "targets the AA may have set" are based on regulatory requirements or good industry practice etc. not something we just think is a good idea. Whilst many employers do, because of the exposure elements of the Vibration Risk Assessment, you can utilise industry averages (produced by Stihl, FC etc.) rather than 'logging hours', whihc are often over exaggerated, and combine this with an effective program of health surveillance (there have been many instances of HAVS over recent years with employers being fined very, very large sums of money...and employees, including myself, suffering long term.) 'Near Misses' - reporting of, should be viewed positively as a means of identifying potential accidents / incidents, "lessons learned" etc. ...just the AA perspective. Thanks all.. Paul

BUMP - just in case anybody missed these AA 'Safety Guides' (SGs) first time round. They are essentially a 'check-list' for the respective Technical Guides (TGs), in effect giving an overview of such, and can be used for onsite safety inspections (a bit like the previous 'blue-inserts' for the FASTCo leaflets...for those who are "mature" enough to remember .) They can be downloaded by following the link: 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. TG3 - rigging, and it's SG, will follow early in 2021. Merry Christmas all, have a 'safe', and hopefully relaxing and peaceful, time. Paul

On the point about felling Ash with ADB - here's the previously issued FISA Safety Guidance Note ...as an aside. Safety+Guidance+Note+-+Felling+dead+ash+-+April+2018.pdf

Thanks Steve. In practice, and I stand to be corrected (as always), and perhaps other than Innonotus in Ash, and maybe Massaria on LP, I'm not particularly aware of fungi being a safety issue / factor when climbing...but more potentially when felling (partic. ADB.) Hence my thoughts here were simply to list commonly associated fungi, perhaps including aerial or basal occurrence such that the reader can decide whether to read further with the links you include. I wasn't thinking anything more here and certainly wasn't thinking of rating these. Cheers.. Paul

Sorry Steve, I don't understand your question / point about "how to implement it".....do you mean what criteria to apply and how to do so consistently? If so I hadn't envisaged it being do so technically, more here's 20 common tree species - grade them 1-5 (safe to unsafe) and then take an average (directed to either a select group OR a "poll" for 2 weeks where anyone can rate them...dunno.) Sorry mate, have to 'sign off' now.. Cheers n look back tomorrow.

Hi Steve, was just a "thought out loud" of a way to have a quick reference...but doing so would perhaps detract from reading and learning...and I do acknowledge it would be subjective (but it could be rationalised(?) by having a number of experienced people determine a rating and then take the average...BUT, point conceded!) Thanks Steve and I look forward to seeing it develop...thanks. ATB Paul

Hi Steve, great start...I would avoid blocks of text wherever possible, keeping info succinct and bullet-pointed etc. (sorry, the 'page' you pasted was probably illustrative.) Perhaps a rubbish idea (I'm sure some will agree), and obviously subjective, but is it worth rating the common species 1-5 based on general caution levels...Ash being 4/5 given inherent brittleness, ADB and Innonotus hispidus etc. with Oak being 1...just a thought. Thanks .. Paul

The (ISA) CODIT Principle helps in respect of...CODIT effectiveness and timing of pruning, in terms of tolerance there's two aspects to this, one being species general vigour, e.g. Lime (Tillia spp) being general very tolerant...and Beech (Fagus spp) much less so, and two being individual vitality (health) which is for the Arborist to assess and prescribe. All good stuff. Cheers Paul

Hi Jamie, "indeed", and 'thank you', it would appear that Steve is already "on the case" here so I too look forward to what he produces giving us all the opportunity to contribute based on our collective knowledge and experience. Regards, Paul

I quite agree that experience / competence = wisdom and knowledge but hope this can be shared. A simple database for -Species (common / botanical name AND (vital) photo (in and out of leaf ideally - or links to RHS / WT etc.) -General characteristics - broadleaf / evergreen . wood strength / brittleness / common structural defects / common fungi associations -Climbing issues: anchors / footing etc. -Rigging issues: -Felling issues: Other: Sure this would be of value.

I couldn't agree more...and happy to contribute (one of which would be for Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) and potential weak forks / unions in main stems and branch connections - perhaps more of a surveyors issue, as can lead to failure, but one that climbers should be aware of too for anchor point selection or when felling etc. (the inclusion of botanical names is intentional as I think professional arbs should know their 'Top 10' broad-leaves and 'Top 3' conifers, at least the genera ('Surname' ) but perhaps that's a different database.)) If anybody particularly wanted to progress this through the Association, firstly you'd have to be prepared to get involved (AWG - arborist working group) and it would take time...considerable time (obviously Steve's proposal could probably come online very quickly and be added to as we go.) "Best wishes all, and I hope you're safe and well...and stay so." Cheers Steve, hope you're well. Paul (Arb Association)