AA Teccie (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)

Hi Timon, perhaps, at least to some extent, HSE over-simplified the issue by introducing a requirement for 2 systems regardless of how previous incidents / accidents occurred, i.e. a safety net approach...which "on the face of it" is understandable, and hard to argue with (except here! ) Regardless, and respectfully, "we are where we are" and hope the future is positive...and with less falls. ATB Paul

John, thank you for sharing, that was an excellent video, the close up and context shots worked so well. As a matter of interest, and this is a learning point for me (and maybe others), I note the methodology employed a strop, i.e. a 3rd point of connection, at change-overs...is this a C&G assessment requirement? Also, and I know this will probably never "catch-on", but when you refer to "load bearing anchors" the term now used (because IRATA use it and HSE liked/expected it) is "unquestionably reliable" (semantics) Thanks again, I haven't climbed for many years but that video inspired me to consider it ...maybe because of the weather. Regards, Paul

Kevin we did, and mainly my colleague Simon, disagree on several occasions, often supported by feedback via industry consultations ("thank you all"), and pushed back at HSE. Hence the use of the backup is a concession to 2-ropes at all times, as is 1 point of attachment with rope advance on ascent, even though many have adopted the 2-ropes approach. In terms of saying "no", we didn't consider we had grounds to do so because: a) they are the regulator b) IRATA use 2 lines (I know that's deemed as different but essentially a W@H industry) c) Utility Arb did it already (generally) Regards, Paul

Hi Kevin, never perceived as "giving me stick" but the HSE simply don't have that level of detail, and neither do we tbf Sorry, I can't help you anymore here and, tbh, with HSE taking on a new building fire regs role, plus COVID policing etc., we're probably never gonna geddit...even though they did give an undertaking to review how accidents are reported via their 'SIC' codes. Perhaps the Utility industry sector, who are far more likely to record accidents and causation etc., can offer some insight...but of course the majority have been using 2-ropes for some time now and hence won't be falling from trees (tongue very firmly in side of mouth recess.) If any reports do come to my attention via UAG I will be sure to share.. ATB, Paul

Morning Alex, my comment about inexperienced climbers was an assertion, albeit based on a general principle of such, and a response to Kevin's post. The opportunity to "chat with HSE" has effectively passed now the industry guidance is completed (after several rounds of consultations.) Going forward training and assessment has/will change to reflect the change (ICOP2 / TG1 etc.) and we will endeavor to ensure non-Lantra registered training providers / colleges are also made aware. Happy to take the "flak", as always , but "we are where we are" and, respectfully, need to look forward with an open mind...please. Thanks all, keep safe.. Paul

This is what I was referring to. Not 'data' in a statistical sense but some supporting evidence for HSE to pressure the industry to change / improve safety Arboricultural Association - HSE Fall from Height Incidents involving arborists WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <p class= lead bold mb10 >This article contains brief examples of the falls from height reported to HSE under... Also, from an earlier article: However, in 2018, HSE analysed RIDDOR reports for the period April 2017–March 2018 by searching for key words. Although heavily caveated as not being a comprehensive record, the findings were published in an open paper (AFAG 33/02) which was presented at the November 2018 AFAG meeting. According to the analysis, there were 117 recorded RIDDOR-reportable incidents in arboriculture during that period. Of these, 23 were falls from height, of which one was fatal, 6 resulted in fractured vertebrae, 3 multiple fractures, 5 lower limb fractures and fracture to ankle, ribs and wrist.

They did supply some data for industry consumption...will supply tomorrow ?

HSE have data to indicate it does happen, including with Approved Contractors (“no comment” ?), and that’s only available from RIDDOR reports...suggestion being not all are reported. Plus of course inexperienced climbers are more at risk n hopefully additional measures safeguard all...time will tell. Thanks Kevin Paul...”signing off”

Hi Paddy, once TG1 is formally released (2 weeks) training and assessment organisations will have consistent standards to work to and, hopefully, apply consistently. Please see earlier comments about connecting to the harness. Thank you. Paul

Do bridges fail? (I don't know but haven't heard of it commonly.) HSE have accepted 2 independent systems , independently attached e.g. separate karabiners, to a single bridge but two bridges may be a better option...it's for the "proficient operator" to determine in conjunction with the "competent person" (ICOP2 terms). In a nutshell - 2 harnesses, 4 pair of trousers and 6 helmets are not required Paul

Khriss, many business have adopted a policy of 2-ropes..."end of." This is the employers prerogative.

Its always good to "clear the air" in any relationship...and admit defeat (regarding the seat-belt analogy!...I've already 'virtually' kicked my colleague on the shins)

- Agreed - - Agreed (on reflection) - RETRACTED Cheers Paul

Hi Khriss, sorry to read this. The new Technical Guide 1 - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue (TG1) will be available very soon and that will give detailed information, illustratively, of how / what systems would comply. Cautious is good, having the extra security of a backup system / 'fail-safe' "just in case", is better. Please bear with it..."ALL" Thanks Paul

Provided your "two points of attachment" are both load-bearing, i.e. can support you independently, you are not required to have a 3rd point of attachment (lanyard) provided the original ones are not at risk from cutting (obviously you may still use a lanyard to improve your positioning / stability.) If you use 2 ropes, obviously the 2nd one being also able to get to ground is sensible...but not formally required (it is of course required with the first one such that the rescue line need not be employed as self-rescue takes precedent.) Hope this makes sense Cheers, Paul

"Time will tell.." Thanks Kevin, hope you're well. Paul