Spruce Pirate

I agree wholeheartedly with the above, except I think the chairman is Tilhill, not SW. As far as the hardwood is concerned, this must be total nonsense. It has to either apply accross the board or not. Cutting trees proffessionally does not differentiate between hard and soft woods, there may be slightly different skills involved, but accidents happen in both hard and soft wood and this is supposed to be about increasing safety.

I was thinking about this today. It think the likes of FC, UPM, Fountain, Councils, Scottish Woodlands, NPA's, etc, etc should all back this up with a promise of hard cash. What I have in mind is if their tendering processes insist on seing refresher certs which have to be supplied with the tender as proof then they should all garuantee a minimum wage for saw operators. A minimum mind, nothing to stop them paying more . So, for example, minimum price for a CS30/31 operator should be, lets say £15 / hour; CS32 - £17.50 / hour; CS 34/35 £20 / hour, climbers... riggers ..... you get the idea. There's nothing to stop you tendering a price of £25 / hour for a CS30/31 if that's what you feel you need to put on the job, but at least we would have a minimum in place. Realistically, if we know these prices most of us would bid at the minimum to try and win the work, but at least then its up to us to sell ourselves on our merits, rather than cut our throats on costs. I will now return from the land of fantasy with a bump, but it was a nice visit.

As far as I know, yes. Never hired a grinder, but have had chippers out on hire and never been asked for a cert. Individual hire companies may have different rules though.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the government's revenue. There are all sorts of problems with the way we train chainsaw use in this country and refresher training is not going to sort them. As an idea I think it has some merit points, but it is not the be all and end all, you can be refreshed and still be a dangerous operator. Those who bemoan the safety record should take a long hard look at their procurement procedures and question why they are based either entirely, or largely biased towards price. Pay peanuts - get monkeys, simples. If you want a highly skilled operator you might have to pay for one, oh and I agree with Craobh, it will always be dangerous as long as you have a man (or woman, I've been told off for that before), a saw and a big lump of wood. This will not change, no matter what refresher we do, but skilled operators should be able to minimise the danger.

Agreed. And maybe if the certificats concentrated more on actual chainsaw and felling safety and less on which permission you needed from the council, which birds you need to look for, etc they would be more effective.

As said before: HSE are concerned about the high accident rate in forestry and have decreed that the industry must sort it out or they will step in. The industry bigwigs have got together and come up with FISA to try and improve our safety record. They are trying to achieve a reduction in accidents. It appears that refresher training has worked in other industries (I think, but I'm willing to be corrected) and so it is firmly on the cards for us. I will need to read the proposals further before deciding if it is any way meaningful refresher training. A series of tick boxes will do very little to actually improve safety. Refresher might be the best option, at one time re-certification was talked about, although this might also have some merit in weeding out truly poor operators.

Why not do the refresher first - then you're ahead of the game when you do the ticket. I think I was told one day training, one day assessment, but I haven't done it. If its anything like normal you could probably do the training in the morning and assessment in the afternoon, if you could organise a training provider who would do it for you. Can't remember the price I was quoted.

I went to Canada once (visiting relatives) and some of the language is quite different. Not very different, just different meanings and people don't know what you mean immediately and that was just normal conversation. I think its worse when you get into industry specifics (whatever industry). Its all good though, we're all expanding our understanding and vocabulary.

We just call them woodcutters don't we?

Give her the cash then, and a lift to Buftons.

Mine too, I've bought at least three different brands from them, and put at least the same in to get worked on. I agree the margin on a saw isn't much, but it maintains the relationship. A good dealer is a man with whom it is well worth cultivating a good relationship with. I can put a saw in and walk out with one on a borrow until it's done and you certainly can't do that over the interweb.

Language thing is getting me again too. What's a timber cruiser? I could google it, but it's much more fun to ask here.

Yes, it should be a test of competence, not speed (but don't be geologically slow). Most assessors I've ever met are reasonable people who are quite able to get the information out of you they need. They are not going to fail you because you didn't give them the exact phrase from the book in the exact order it's written in.

Fair enough. I originally thought the problem was the posting to NI, not the posting of the saw. Wondered if it was like our highlands & islands restrictions on anywhere north of Perth.

Yeah, but you keep money in the local economy and you build a relationship with the local dealer who will be able to work on your saw there and then, rather than have to post it back and wait for its return. You pay for the local service and availability. Not to say you don't get good service from Jones, all I've heard about them has been good.

Have they tightened up recently? I know someone who got a Husky through the post within the last two months (I think, say three months to be on the safe side), only had to provide proof of being a proffessional user (sent copy of NPTC card). I'm pretty sure I was told the same for Stilh over the interweb. Good news for local dealers if they have tightened up. Bad news for the internet boys.

I'd worry much more about being able to demonstrate that your cuts are good than remembering every detail of the assessment schedule. Trees on the ground in the right place in a safe manner is what assesment should be about. A good assessor should be able to draw the information out of you he (or she) needs.

Just being nosey, but why not?

I think that's the point I was trying to make before, I could probably have been clearer.

What do you do when you've got all the modules?

That's interesting, I've been using a saw since '96, and I learn stuff from almost every cutter I meet, be they woodcutters, tree surgeons, training providers or any mix of the aforementioned. I do think that current training for this industry is barely fit for purpose, and I do not think that refresher training is the answer to this, in fact I tend to agree that it is more of a money making exercise for trainers. But, if it is done right, it is an opportunity for us all to develop further skills. I am NOT interested in spending 3 or 4 days being refreshed in maintenance, cross-cutting and felling small trees - I think that is totally over the top for an operator who has been using a saw proffessionally for 17 years. I do think that if I can refresh all my ground based tickets in a day and all my climbing based tickets in another day that doing this every 5 years would not be a bad thing. It keeps up to date with best practice, can introduce any new ideas - I know we've been cutting down trees since pre-historic times, but new ideas, or at least different ideas, do come along from time to time. If both the cost and duration of refresher training could be reigned in I think it would be a much more attractive proposition. We are not the only industry that is subject to refresher / re-licensing etc. I shall open the floor to further discussion.

We cut close to the ground as an inch at the bottom is worth a foot at the top (maybe more in high value timber), also if you find a lot of rot at the bottom when putting in the gub you can always move up the stem to get sound wood. The humbolt is always quoted as saving fibre pull and presenting a square log for the mill, rather than losing the face cut from it, but most of the time it seems to result in timber loss due to the high stump. Since most of the face will be slab wood anyway I tend to think a conventional (to us) cut also has benefits in maximising timber production. Definitely interested in seeing some of the fancy north american cuts Croabh, especially if you can explain what's going on.

Yes. Definitely. A lot of people are employed and self-employed at the same time.

Or what went right and why?

See the rate my hinge thread, there's some good and bad stumps on it. Not a bad idea though, just need to get a good selection of stumps and results.