AA Teccie (Paul)

Hi Jo, No law as such, essentially HSE will refer you back to manufacturers recommendations regarding standard replacemnet periods or 'shelf life' (see guidance below.) Helmets are generally recommended for replacement every 3 years of sooner if manufacturer says so or subject to significnat incident. If you are varying from this then potentially your are on 'thin ice', so to speak, and would need to have records of periodic inspection by a competent person concluding the PPE was still effective and 'fit for purpose'. However, the old adage "if in doubt, throw it out", must be borne in mind. Personal protective equipment at work (Second edition) - HSE Books See here for a copy of the full PPE ACOP (Approved Code of Practice whihc has 'quasi-legal' status, meaning you should adhere to it.) Cheers.. Paul PPE ACOP stmt(121218).docx PPE(indg174).pdf

Why? There's nothing eliteist (sorry abt spelling) about being an AA member or ArbAC, it's simply a matter of choice is it not? Some are, and will, some aren't and won't. I beleive those that do, do so out of choice, or because a contract or client requires it, but I don;t beleive they consider themselves above the pack. Or maybe I've missed your point completely and your comments are aimed at me? Sorry, really struggling with this one Paul

.......sorry Andy. Please have a 'fantastic weekend'. Take care mate. Paul

HI Albedo, thanks for the post. Like it or not, as I know you know, H&S is increasingly the way of the world, rightly or wrongly, and I do my best to interpret it and help others to comply. Afterall that's what sets us/you apart from the 'not-so-reputable' element, in part. Unfortunately whilst we do seek to gaurantee high quality workmanship the reality is it's (too) often outside the control of the business quoting / appointed. If Mrs Miggins wants her tree 'topping' and despite best efforts to educate her otherwise she sticks to her guns, what do you (or an ArbAC) do when you've got a living to earn...better to do it safely with a reputable contractor yeah? Increasingly too we are seeing LA spesc that leave much to be desired but it's often the highways engineers and/or 'bean-counters' influencing this. Hence quality is indeed very hard to control at source. The ArbAC SCheme will never be the CORGI / GAS SAFE equivalent for tree surgery, it's simply not BIG enough, not dangerous enough (to 3rd parties / MoPs) and doesn't generate enough revenue to even start to appear on the central government radar whihc is where it would need to come from. As I've said many times, the only option is for self-regulation and even suggesting such in this industry is a big enough challenge Cheers.. Paul

Thought we'd got over that one.

Hi Tom, to be honest it will do as much or as little as you want. Depends how much you engage with the orgainsation as it engages with you, updates knowledge, networking etc. are some key benefits of AA membership. I'm pleased to hear you think only half your clients won't have heard of us, I'd suggest it's probably nearer 99% to be honest...but then how many other trade bodies / accreditations (other than CORGI/GAS SAFE or maybe NICEIC) would they know...why should they? What we need to do better is 'arm' AA contractors with stuff to help educare poeple as to what's involved and why they are accredited. Give me a call / pm should you wish to discuss further. Thanks.. Paul

Thanks Andy, useful stuff. Cheers.. Paul

Ok, thanks Steve, that's useful. Have agood weekend. Paul

Hi all, Just on the subject of 'aerial tree inspections', the AA Arborist Working Group ('AWG') are currently working on a guidance note to assist undertaking these where there is no clear instruction as to what the client/owner/consultant wants checking, i.e. a general instruction to undertake a climbing inspection of a tree. I'll let you know when it's published / available. Cheers all.. Paul PS IN case you're wondering what AWG is, it's a group of industry base arborists who come together with a view to producing guidance and providing assistance to benefit the industry and those who work witihin it. Hence if any of you have good ideas you feel would help achieve this, and you're prepared to put the time in to follow them through, then please get in touch with me or Jaime Bray...thanks!

Hi there, I acknowledge that but in the event of an incident or accident etc. HSE or the courts would doubtless look to see if there is an industry standard, i.e. the level 4 award (NPTC), and use that as a benchmark in determining if what you were doing acheived an equivalnet level of control etc. etc. Cheers.. Paul

Hi there, BWC scheme isn't occupation specific at all and hence the various CC TSs Depts. up and down the country who are using the scheme aren't intersted in 'partnering' with industry specifc bodies such as 'ARB Approved Contractor' (ArbAC). I'm sure this does have benefits in the domestic sector, as it gives consumers reassuarnce and 'peace of mind' of a reputable contractor, but it does not imply industry competence, work quality nor safe working practices as ArbAC does. Whilst acknowledging the primary benefit of ArbAC is in the commercial sector, inc. (some) Local Authorities...and hopefully soon to increase as we register the scheme under SSIP (see SSIP - Safety Schemes In Procurement) used in procurement procedures, we have a 'small business' accreditation, in effect, whihc costs cirac £500 per year or nearer £600 if you go CHAS. Cheers.. Paul

Sorry, haven't got time to go thru all other posts so apologies if repeated. 'Independent 3rd party' assurance, insurance companies like/expect it, 'peace of mind', sometimes a contractual requirement. If you are considering doing this yourself you need to be very careful and ensure your inspection is to the same standard as one undertaken by a person having done, and succesfuly completed, the level 4 award in 'thorough examination of arb equipment' and be able to demonstrate / justify how / why. Also you are very well advised to have a record of inspection and that it follow the guidance in the LOLER ACOP. Bearing all that in mind is it not worth engaging an inspector who would/should do this for you whilst you better spend your time doing something else? Just my views. Cheers all.. Paul

Interesting 'conundrum' you post. Just to give another angle/consideration the TCPA (Town & Country PLanning Act) covering trees in Conservation Areas starts at 75mm dia. @ 1.5m above ground level. Interestingly it alos defines a tree as anything and ordinary person might call a tree...or words to that effect. I don't believe there is any right / wrong / definitive answer to your question...but interesting nonetheless. Cheers.. Paul

Hi ANdy, thank you, an interetsing post. If I may, does the FCA meet your needs as an arborist or as a business, or both? What would / could / should we do to attract you? Is it a cost issue? Thanks in anticpation.. Paul

Steve, thank you for an interesting post here (and Jaime, apologies for 'jumping in'.) The idea of an 'AA Approved Arborist', i.e. an accredited individual as opposed to a business as we currently have with 'ARB Approved Contractor', has been mooted before but I'm unsure of the benefits it could bring and indeed the need for it. We currently have the ISA Cert Arborist / the Euro Tree Worker / the NPTC etc. system so what could we add? (That said I do acknowledge these are prinicpally qualifications and not necessarily demonstrating competence and proficiency.) Thoughts???...'et al'! Thanks again.. Paul

Aaah, see where you're coming from now Peter,i.e. NPTC+CSCS=arb specific rather than ROLO+NPTC+LISS/CSCS = arb specific. Apparently the 'agreement' BALI have with CSCS is that all land-based operatives should hold the (ROLO) LISS/CSCS card before being allowed on sites. In practice though it would seem many accept your proposed combination. Cheers.. Paul

OMG...a veritable 'quagmire', and just when I thought I was getting to grips with it. Still red, white and black...maybe good if you're a Man U fan. Joking apart, this is clearly something of a minefield which would benefit from some clarity and improved focus. Thanks for your reply, v useful. Paul

Peter, thanks for your reply. Two reasons why your proposal wouldn't work under the current regime. 1. The NPTC /Lantra Awards route doesn't include the broad spectrum of H&S stuff that the ROLO scheme does, albeit at a basic level (I acknowledge it looks at risk assessment in detail but not wider H&S issues / principles etc.) 2. Essentially the LISS/CSCS card includes 'arborist', at various levels, as the occupation. I did suggest some considerable time ago that NPTC should include a foundation unit on general H&S stuff as a prerequisite to the actual skils competencies but, sadly, this never happened. Hence we now have LISS/CSCS which is our only, current, opportunity for an industry specific award. But, whilst people can simply get the 'GREEN' , constructive operative card whihc seems to give them access to sites the need to pursue the LISS/CSCS route is reduced. Cheers.. Paul

Hmmm, interesting posts here. Many/some seem to be suggesting that taking the 'GREEN' (construction site operative) 'touch-screen' test, and passing it of course, AND having your NPTC card availbale covering the operations you are undertaking on said construction site is deemed adequate to give you access....'SIMPLES'. I spent a day with BALI yesterday discussing both the content of the 'ROLO' (Regsiter of Landscape Operatives, and nothing to do with "giving someone your last one..") scheme H&S course, which forms the basis of the CSCS/LISS (Construction Site Certification Scheme / Landscape Industries Sector Scheme) whihc is the landbased industry specific qualification....but still requires you to do the construction 'touch-screen' test in order to get the CSCS card So, should the Association become a training provider for ROLO which would allow us to deliver the standard course in a arboricultural / treework context...I think probably so for those who do need a landbased industry specific card, i.e. LISS/CSCS. Of course this only affects you if you work on construction sites and/or highways (under the NHSS 18 scheme.) Cheers all and any comments / 'steers' gratefully rec'd. Paul

Hi all, hope you're well. I have updated the 'qualifications & training matrix' on the AA website (or will be very shortly), used to both let you see 'at a glance' who has what qualifications/'tickets' required to do a particular job, AND, importantly, to assist in managing update/refresher/advancement (e.g. CS31 to CS32 or CS39 to CS41) training needs. I have changed the format from 'a table in MS word', which was very difficult to modify , to an excel spreadsheet which is much more flexible and easy to modify. Please remember the list of quals/training included is not exhaustive, so you need to modify it to suit your business (I would suggest by adding stuff rather than taking stuff off) AND it's produced with the smaller business in mind. What the matrix doesn't readily take into account are other, very important, factors that need considering when deciding if someone is competent to do a particular task/job: 1. Experience - nos. years in the industry 2. Expereince - at carrying out that particular task 3. Currency - how 'up-to-date' are they 4. Knowledge - of the particular task These factors may also determine what level of supervision, if any, is required on the job. For completeness, I have also included a copy of AFAG 805 'Training and Certification.' Hope this to be helpful. Cheers.. Paul afag805.pdf Quals-training-matrix. (Dec.2012).xls

I have to admit, I'd never even heard of the term prior to your posting (hnec I went back to my NEBOSH course notes / books and no mention there either.) However I think you've summed it up quite nicely, further the 'Wiki' reference is contained within section headed "Risk Management Techniques in Petroleum and Gas"...and I think that says it all. What I do know/understand is that the level of complexity of your risk assessment should refelct the level of complexity of the task/job, hence I'd stick to the 'bow-tie' being something you tie around your neck...or maybe other part of your anatomy. The 'linear', or composite, risk assessment methodology should be deemed adequate for using atop-handled chainsaw (there is a generic RA for general chainsaw use at Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor scroll down to RA section.) Hope this helps and thanks for the clarification. Cheers.. Paul

The two previous units, CS32 Medium Tree Felling & CS33 Large Tree Felling, have indeed 'merged' as the techniques involved are similar and the demand, and 'access to', large trees was a problem...as I understand it. Hence now there is the "Award in felling and processing trees over 380mm dia." (level 3) AND you can achieve this with either NPTC or Lantra Awards,as both now offer a valid / recognised 'certificate of competence / licence to practice'. Re- windblow (previous CS 34 Single & CS35 Multiple) this is now the "Award in severing uprooted or windblown trees using a chainsaw" (level 3.) Hope this helps. Paul PS - see ARB Mag (Winter 2012, p.50) for further info.

Hmmm, BS (Note 1, p.28) states "Specifications for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc." Also guidance to the 1APP (TPO app form) refers to use of branch length removed and remaining etc. I would suggest moving towards actual dimensions, wheerver possible, but always to state that reference to dimensions is approximate to give some flexibility and room for manoevre when completeing the actual works. Just my thoughts / interpretations. Cheers.. Paul

Have you tried taking a photo then drawing a line where you anticipate the 'finished' tree height and width will be then show to the client and get their agreement? Otherwise it's down to a tight spec, avoiding reference to percentages as BS3998 (2010) states that is imprecise and unsatisfactory. The spec should say, with all dimensions approximate, reduce height by 2.0m and spread/width by 1.5m to leave avaerge finished tree dimensions of 16m high x 12m spread...or similar. At the end of the day if the client isn;t happy you make a judgement on whethre it's worth the fight to defend you position, often not, or return and prune more off...too often done but they hold the purse-strings so very difficult. And 'yes' they often wnat more off than is good / ideal for the tree....but then "the customers always right"???!!! Cheers.. Paul