AA Teccie (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

..as I said, 'some' would and modify how they work, but what's to say todays not the day it fails...unlikley...BUT! "I have"...loooooooooong time ago, but wouldn't now as the world's a different place and MEWPs have moved on from the old Council lighting wagon. Hope yer well.. Paul

'WorcsWuss' just about sums it up nicely, AND, I would suggest, even if a fall was unrelated to a TIP because of KD the HSE/courts would still relate it back as poor judgement / negligence. In the commercial world, I'm sure 'some' would take the risk, particularly if the tree has to be removed / reduced and you can't fell it or access with a platform, but in so doing they also take the chance...I wouldn't (that said I do recognise that in so doing they would modify how they climb / dismantle / rig, if req'd...hopefully not, but they're unlikley to have this written down in the form of a method statement so if anything untoward did happen the HSE/courts would see it simply as climbing an unsafe tree = no, no!) One of the key factors to educate learners in is assessing risk and thinking outside the 'tree-climbing' box towards other 'safer' methods of work (where appropriate / necessary). This sounds like an ideal opportunity. Cheers.. Paul

There's been much in the press recently about how 10% of the national workforce are "under-employed"...maybe this is an example of one of life's balances? Paul

You're welcomed, glad to be of service! Cheers..

No worries, "my pleeeeeeasure!" Cheers..

Hi there, just thinking that one through. You really need to add it in at the quotation stage, and ideally bring it to the clients attention, i.e. "Please note terms and conditions overleaf"...or similar, as then, by accpeting, they are effectivley agreeing to the Ts & Cs. Hope that makes sense Cheers.. Paul

(All +VAT) The standard rate is £155, discounted to £95 for AA members (Associate and above.) However, if you were able to provide a venue, and 'BYO' lunch perhaps, I'm sure we could negotiate it down a little further. Cheers.. Paul

Yup: 1. 27 Feb @ Easthampstead Park (Nr Bracknell) 2. 8 May @ Lantra House (Nr Coventry) 3. 17 Jul @ Easthampstead House (as above) 4. 18 Sep @ Lantra House (as above) 5. 30 Oct @ Shuttleworth (Bedfordshire) OR "any time, any place, any where" if you can get a min. 6-8 people together. Cheers John n enjoy NZ .. Take care out there.. Paul

Hi all, hope yer well. For some guidance on 'Ts & Cs', an issue often discussed here on the forum , please see a new entry (at the bottom of the page, purely as it was the last thing entered) at Help becoming an ARB Approved Contractor These are principally aimed at small businesses working in the domestic sector and may not be adequate / suitable for commercial contract work. Hope it helps. Cheers.. Paul

So c'mon, who'm I gonna see at Ilminster (lovely venue a Dillington House)...might even bring you a Christmas Card...n 'mince pies' of course! Looking forward to it Cheers.. Paul

In H&S speak, the first port of call is always to combat the hazard at source, i.e. use a flail (impractical largely) and next is 'reduce' the hazard, i.e. replace 'old' trimmers & blowers with new ones whihc have much lower vibration magnitudes. PPE include AV gloves is always a last resort and as has been pointed out HSE don't recommend them. Still, if only to keep the hands warm and you can get a comfortable and secure grip, then 'gofrit.' Cheers all.. Paul PS For further info see http://www.hse.gov.uk/vibration/hav/index.htm and don;t forget the requirement for 'Health Surveillance' for people 'at risk' (select that section and scroll down to bottom of the page for the 'initial screening questionnaire' and take yourslef and your staff through this...any problems / concerns = OHS not the GP!)

Harry, thank you for your post and good to hear you found the course useful. Cheers.. Paul

Conan, thanks for your post...I must confess to being a bit lost within it tho I'm more than happy, in fact I'd love, to do stuff 'up north' (the 'mother land') but sadly we very rarely get the min. nos. req'd to make it viable. In this instance the min. nos. 6-8 would be req'd...presumably you are saying you're just the one, i.e. no additional staff etc. Do you have colleagues / compatriots who may be interested? Cheers.. Paul

Trees are a 'material consideration' in the planning process regardless of whether or not they are TPO'd / CA'd etc. Hence if there are trees on the site at the time of application (???) the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are quite correct to ask for an arb report. On receipt the tree / planing officer should determine whether a TPO would be appropriate, if not aleady in place, but in so doing should have a recognised procedure for so doing, i.e. Helliwell System (or variation of). Regardless of development proposals, if the tree doesn't make the (TPO) grade then it shouldn't be protected...SIMPLES! Paul

Hi David, hope you're well. Not quite, however 'your' industry code of practice dictates that you should have a physical divide / barrier when both a cutter and operator are in the same bucket. Failing that, production of a detailed Risk Assessment / Method Statement explaining what other measures you are employing to achieve an equivalent level of control should be undertaken and the size of the bucket / distance from cutter is a good starting point (as is method of working, i.e. operator stays with the controls and perhaps the lanyard used ensures this, as is PPE, i.e. chainsaw jacket for the operator unless he/she is chainsaw 'qualifed' and maybe anyway if you have one etc. etc.) The above 'suggestion', whihc is the norm when you are veering form published guidance, will only ultimatley be deemed acceptable or not in the event of HSE intervention. Hope this helps. Cheers.. Paul

Hi Tony, hope yer well. Is that a 'philosophical' question you pose...VAT does apply to H&S products, does it not? But the 'H&S' aspect of the course is incidental, effectively it's the delivery of a service and as we generate income above the VAT threshold of £77k p/a (I think) we have to charge it...sorry! Paul