Tony.Price

Good discussion Chris, Basic tree inspection courses are available through the AA, L2, which are adequate for informal and formal inspections although experience and knowledge through working with trees is felt to be adequate also! I agree the L3 PTI is a benchmark for formal inspections but on its own is not a licence to practice consultancy! The competence of the inspector is measured through knowledge of the subject, qualification and experience coupled with the backing of adequate PI & PL ins's. A point made by Claus Mattheck at one of the symbiosis seminars this year was, we must stay within our level of knowledge and not comment on anything we do not fully comprehend ourselves or we could find ourselves sinking in deep water if something goes wrong! More specialist detailed inspections therefore must be afforded to inspectors with the experience, knowledge and understanding of the subject. The proof of which is higher education >L6 qualifications and being registered to either the ICF or AA. Tree Life at Syston are worthy of a call to discuss career options.

A good question that many don't understand! Referring to a well known document (BS3998), pollarding should be initiated soon after the tree has established the desired height. It involves not only pruning the upper crown but the laterals also on a cyclic basis to promote knuckles to form retaining them and some existing foliage to sustain the tree. Timing depending on species, vigour, condition, management objectives, age etc. Wound size should be kept to a minimum and limited to a maximum of 50- 200mm in diameter, suggesting that larger trees can be treated in this way in some circumstances. This being said, a mature tree, not being afforded this treatment previously, and requiring reducing in height, exceeding what we believe to be good practice, is not classified as a pollard in its original meaning. Should this same lopped & topped mature tree be retained, it may well then be managed as a pollard to mitigate the risk of the maturing re-gen ripping out at the point of attachment due to decay from large wounds. Lapsed pollards (old pollarded trees not being maintained any longer) may be re-instated although not usually back to the original pollard knuckles due to the likely size of wounds but also the impact to the trees potential energy reserves! A minimal reduction to meet the objectives is best sort on such old pollards. In summary, if the wounds are small I.e. c.50mm in diameter and the tree is planned to have this work repeated on a cyclic basis, regardless of its maturity, it may be classed as a pollard. If the wounds are larger than this, especially if they exceed 200mm in diameter, this would be classed as lopping/topping, bad practice! Management thereafter may be classed as pollarding and would be strongly recommended. Hope this helps.

The friction created by the rope slipping through the hitch would cause excessive heat damage in the rope and, lengthen the drop. A Skilled groundy could let it run over the same distance using a rotating bollard such as GRCS to take up slack when in free fall before loading occurs. Not tested, but my interpretation of what you are describing

The few days attended during the level 4 year where invaluable, both meeting other professionals but also understanding the material required to answer the brief. It is very likely that one would misunderstand the brief as they are broadly retrospective and so you could find yourself wasting your time answering in the wrong context. I can guarantee you will not find the depth of knowledge and volume required an easy task that could be undertake in much less time. The more time and detail you put into this Qual, the more you will get out of it. The portfolio you produce will serve as a point of reference for future work and education alike.

This would be a feat and not for the faint hearted! Do you not work or have any life? The work is marked on a portfolio you produce with some of my 'fortnightly' submissions being over 10,000 words and the largest being nearly 28,000 words!!! This is not including re-submissions. I only had a few but these add to the time (also helped me to learn) I had done a lot of training running up to the level 4 my self, and with my experience as a contractor running a business, consultancy and a trainer/assessor for Lantra Awards/C&G NPTC ARb & For, my year was VERY VERY busy!!! (day and night). The wife and kids where great:thumbup: I to wanted to take a short cut and take the L6 straight away as I already had a college ND over 2 years in the 90's and a multitude of other courses attended since that with what I thought was an excellent knowledge. I have also spent over 2K on literature during my time on the L4/6. 'I' simply couldn't type or read and retain info that fast. Not easy, but a very rewarding LEVEL 4 Qual

Try Tree life at Syston to discuss your options. Some tutorial will be necessary though, and yo can do it over a longer period if you miss the term time for final submission. Tony Tree Life Training

Hi Max, Yes, I attended the L4 with Andy at Syston and have completed the first year of the L6 with David. I cannot shout their praises enough and the courses have & will be invaluable to me. Tony

A consultant is expected to give impartial advice which is easier for them to do being more independent. They are also specialists in their field. A tree surgeon would normally, BUT BY NO MEANS ALWAYS, be recommending work that they wish (at some point) to undertake. This, therefore, can be seen as looking to line their own pockets. Specialism is the organisation and undertaking of the work by definition. A can of worms, probably but my opinion. At some point, a line must be drawn. Otherwise we may become a jack of all trades and master of none!

As per previous, more often than not it would be best to wait, subject to a clear and comprehensive RA being recorded.

A comprehensive reply Andy but a bit bold for me; not having all the evidence! "Lastly, under NO circumstances just get the felling work done without at least getting some reduction or thinning works done on the remainder". It is best to recommend a holistic approach to a group of trees. However, I feel it would be best to assess this situation 'on site' to determine an action plan before recommending expensive, and probably 'cyclic' management needs to a group of over 20 trees. A consultants advise is 'in my opinion' money well spent.

What is dangerous You must take clear records of the risk posed and consult with Natural England. They are likely to tell you that you will bear the risk as there is no exemption within the legislation for the felling of dangerous trees with nesting birds Can the risk be reduced with minimum disturbance i.e. use MEWP reduce some weight here and there? This is still disturbance but less so than felling! The vermin species licence is NOT appropriate in this case. If you feel you must. Remove the nest with young eggs/young safely, recording your actions, why, and take to a rescue centre. All at your own risk as the legislation does not permit it! What is only reasonable in the circumstances! Tony

This has always been a grey area whilst risk assessing my own team. Best practice is only a minimum requirement not a definitive one! Every employer must risk assess the tasks they are undertaking so as to minimise risk of harm? I second your point Terry. Issues I have had as an employer/supervisor: IPAF/Lantra/C&G, do not cover; Dropping material from a MEWP - in fact they dictate we must not. Positioning the machine in relation to dropping material is not covered. Methods of breaking off sections using ropes or by hand are not covered. Where to put the machine when cutting is completed (how many people have you seen hand it over the side of the basket?) The MEWP is more vulnerable to turning over should the saw get stuck in the curf cut. I have had other issues I am sure.

When answering this question we must look at the legislation and industry best practice guidance; After all, this is what we are aspiring to abide by as professionals and not want to fall short should an incident occur. For employers/employees and the self employed, it is made perfectly clear under the HSAWA, MHSWR, PUWER, LOLER, WAHR, BS399 2010, INDG guides and AFAG guides etc. In summary, persons in the work place must be trained and competent to undertake the tasks in front of them in a safe manner. The proof of training/experience and so competence in our industry has been led recently by the awarding of Cs units. This is now shortly to be confused with other awards now available from LA and renaming of the CS units by C&G NPTC. Training and assessment for both the old Cs 39 and the new 'AWARD IN AERIAL CUTTING OF TREES WITH A CHAINSAW USING FREE-FALL TECHNIQUES' did not and does not include working from climbing spurs cutting the main tree stem or the use of pull lines. It is strongly aimed as an introduction to aerial works involving removal of branches only, tasks such as crown lifting and target pruning. According to the Evaluation of current rigging and dismantling practices used in arboriculture (http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr668.pdf), it is made perfectly clear that the undertaking of dismantling operations requires the operatives to have been awarded certs of competence in the field of work and in addition to have an experienced individual in the team. Greatly relevant here! The holding of unit Cs 39 alone does not suggest they have achieved training on the sectional dismantling of a tree nor pruning of a tree and so the employer/employee or the self employed would be putting themselves at risk of prosecution under the various legislation mentioned, should they employ those individuals to undertake such tasks without adequate supervision. Further Questions: (food for thought) What response would an insurer have should an incident occur involving an individual without the appropriate awards for the tasks undertaken as per industry best practice? Are we who we say we are, 'fully qualified'? If you do not hold all the awards relevant to the tasks you undertake, why not? If you do hold all the awards relevant to the tasks you undertake, do you refresh your training at the recommended intervals; if not, why not? Tony

Well done, you clearly had it in the bag.

Very impressive video. Was there no option other than putting the bollard anchor or other at the base of the tree to increase the life of the rope. From the perspective of the video the fall factor would be very high especially with larger sections and a shorter rope as the stems is reduced. How much damage does this sort of work do to the rope and how many loads like this will it withstand? Food for thought!

Any minors?

PM sent

These are hard times and employers are having to cut costs to compete with the onslaught of new small businesses (1man bands) we are seeing crop up in their hundreds (around here anyway). I cannot compete in the private market any more, there are just to many silly prices being given. Often the prices given by some contractors around here are less than my wage role for a days work:thumbdown:

I have an early TW 150, yr 2002 and have got 800-1100 hours before chainging bearings. All about the maintenance (belt tention, professionally sharpened blades etc) and operators! I have only had a demo of the GM. My lads felt its finished design was not as good and the plating was likely to stress quicker due to it being thinner on the drum housing. They where operating our TW190 the same day though!

Correct if you chip into your car! The changes are that previously b class holders could drive 3.5T vehicles plus <750kg trailer. C1 is now required to cover this. To tow anything above 750kg C1+E is required. Timber Wolf 190 for instance. New drivers after this date will also require a medical and reapply every 5 years. Read the second link regarding 3.5t MAM!

Are you aware of the new driving laws coming into effect on 19 January 2013? They may affect you, especially if you tow a chipper behind a 3.5T MAM requiring a C1 or C1+E category, B category is no longer acceptable!! Changes to driving licence rules in Great Britain : Directgov - Motoring Towing trailers with medium sized vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes : Directgov - Motoring

Landmark trading Stamford mail order.

Quote: Originally Posted by arbogrunt agree with everything on here,but how about reducing a conifer hedge?. I am pretty good with not using a saw one handed, I put time into work positioning to avoid it when I can. I rarely cut and hold on any jobs, but how about Conifers?. Your average Leyland hedge blows everything out of the water. Cut and hold/cut and chuck is the order of the day and as for secondary anchoring....forget it. Tree surgeons sleeves and chainsaw gloves might help a bit, but I know many people who have cut themselves over the years working like we all do in this way. Another example, would you use a 6 wrap prussik to back up a lowering device/fig 8 or munter hitch on a type C 3 man rescue?....in training/assessment yes, in a real life rescue when seconds count...I personally would not. Best practice is the standard we should all aspire to of course, but price driven work practices will always make us take a line between doing everything by the book and getting the job done in the time allowed by the job-price. I agree that conifer hedges are awkward at best providing little in the way of secondary anchors. This should not stop use trying though, after all we can only do what is reasonable. On my risk assessments years since it was commonly noted that a steel lanyard was to be utilized wherever a secondary anchor point was not available in a restricted hedge topping job. Usually passed around several small dia, and already stumped stems 'twice' to prevent it being lifting off (do what is reasonable in the circumstances). We also used a groundsman with rod & hook to direct growth to reduce the use of one hand on the saw (potentially a much quicker method). A three man rescue in my experience gives the groundsman (third man) ample time to back up and ensure the safe decent of his colleagues (I would not expect any less of my groundsman of over 10 years. This has been done by him whilst the rescuer (me) ascends the tree. A rehearsed rescue plan in the work place would elevate any such concerns of time in the installation of a system. Can also be a laugh every so often role playing scenarios. I met a couple of self employed guys only last week that had a great attitude towards our industry. They would sooner (take the hit) work a few extra hours a day and do there work safely, looking out for each other than take such short cuts. If only we all had this attitude, (me included in my earlier years of climbing) our insurance premiums would be a lot cheaper, and we would hurt much less at the end of each day. I understand very well the strains we are all under to be competitive and it is difficult to say no at times especially as we have got away with it so many times. It is only through reminders such as incidents and near misses that the need to say no is reiterated to use; If, we get that second chance! Don't put your self and those around you at any unnecessary & avoidable risk of harm. Many have, and we should learn from their misfortune. Does anyone have any story's to tell?

None of these incidents where felt to be major by the HSE as thankfully the guys where trained and provisions where made for safe working. On the whole I, as a business in the commercial sector have employed over 30 staff since the 90's, only having 5 re-portable incidents in that time. Most of which I am sure don't usually get reported. I suffered excessive heavy increases as all did years ago and have enjoyed a static provision of insurance in more recent years. I have many reports of accidents due to short cuts around here, my own employees incidents are certainly minor ones!