David Dobedoe

I offer a service to help arborists make independent through examinations of equipment an integrated part of how they manage equipment. ( Hopefully more useful than just having someone look through the kit because its a legal requirement but I can do this if that's what you want) This can include advice on equipment selection. For new users and students this can help them make effective choices. For all users its worth factoring manufactures retirement guidelines and quality of documentation in equipment choices. City and Guilds NPTC Level Three Certificate of Competence in the Through Examination of Arboricultural Equipment Professional indemnity insurance with Arborisk

I have a fairly consistent problem with the starting of a 550xp. Most often when others, mostly novice/students use it who perhaps not using the switch as intended. My guess is that they flood it and then its dreadful if not impossible to start. Abandon the saw for a couple of days and attempt to start it 'pops' on first or second pull. Still won't start as it should but will start with the throttle held down. Perhaps this is significant to those of you with more knowledge than me? Smokey once started. I don't think fuel quality/mix is the issue as its one of several saws all on the same fuel. Usually the Husqvarna XP pre mix. Get the saw warmed up and it's fine. Stop and restart whilst hot and its perfect. I'm wondering if the novice users and flooding it is a factor? Perhaps the petrol is evaporating off overnight and then when restarted there is an excess of 2 stroke oil in the cylinder which is the source of the smoke. I know the mk1 550's can be a bit fickle in regards to starting, in this regard ,this is one of the worst saws I've used. If I had to guess the saw would have 100 - 150 hours on it. Anyone seen this before? Any ideas? Thanks David

The boys have killed my Jo Beau M300. The chassis is bent such that the Anvil is pulled out of shape. This means that it cant be adjusted to give a nice uniform gap between the anvil and the blade which in turn means it pulls through chips that are to big and the machine jams. New chassis is approx £1200 and that's before labour and the various parts that would probably be needed for rebuild. So the question is what to do with it? For me and my contacts a chassis repair is a non starter. Risky and expensive. Would approx £2000 be good value for a rebuild? I've been offered cash for the engine so selling the engine and scrapping the rest is an option. Any other ideas? David

Just found the manual, its 60Nm for the blade bolts

I am going to swap the blades on my Beau Jo M300 chipper. Does anyone know the torque settings for the bolts. I'm struggling to find the documentation. Thanks

Happy to give Sam a reference if that helps? D

We are in the process of updating risk assessments for teaching forestry and arboriculture. Does anyone have a risk assessment for teaching rigging that I could have a look at? Is there an AFAG Guide or similar that I have lost track of. Thanks in advance David

I have a colleague who has done a Lantra cross cutting qualification in the past. He is under the impression that it 'runs out' after five years. I understand that refresher training is considered good practice and a requirement for working on forestry commission sites. (Fisa) Does his qualification run out or is he confusing it with good practice. Is there a different or similar story in regards to the NPTC qualifications? Thanks in advance D

Just had a look at the reset instructions. Saw would need to run on 'cold start' for over 30 seconds. I'm lucky to get 10

Yes

201 top handle, starts easy, cuts well but often won't idle after its been started. Tends to settle down if i cut something. Sometimes reving it up up seems to help. It has a new air filter and plug recently. What would be the next steps in sorting it? (And yes I may well send it to Spud)

(I'm no legal expert) If you don't own the trees and didn't do the work I don't understand how the work that has been done could affect you in terms of prosecution. If you buy the land the tree/s were on you perhaps could be accused of the work if or when it comes to light? I would think that the best course of action is for somebody to talk to the tree officer. The issue here maybe that he needs to take action on whoever has been involved with the work which is a bit difficult if they are either going to be your next door neighbour or the people you are trying to buy from. Possibly a better way forward once the tree ownership is clear is for the owner to approach the tree officer with the aim of resolving the situation without prosecution. Mistakes happen and it maybe more in the councils interests to resolve with considered replanting or... I look forward to seeing what others have to say.

Sling round my back with a cross in it. Made a sling to fit with a length of climbing tape and a 'tape knot' works well. Have a tiny rock climbers karabiner to attach it. I like that whilst it has limitations, (knotted sling and non locking karabiner) it fits perfectly and is strong enough to use as a sling and karabiner combination if 'push comes to shove')

Text sent

Maybe, but having spoken with both Aborisk and Trust who i understand to be the main suppliers of arboricultural insurance in the uk it would seem that as soon as your in a supervisor role and self employed / sub contractor you are carrying employer type responsibility on site. I flagged this because i suspect it affects quite a few people. Would be keen to hear about exceptions.

Quick heads up... I've been checking out insurance issues and and it has become clear that when working as a sub contractor, if you take on a leadership role or are supervising others you need your own employers liability.

Until about a two years ago I ran a business 'Morland Tree Services.' from Morland near Penrith. Morland being the name of the village I lived in. I have just had an email from my internet host saying I need to renew the morland.co.uk domain name. I won't be doing that as I now live in Devon and the Morland based work is not really relevant to me now. Out of curiosity I googled 'morland tree services' I couldn't remember if I still had the domain name pointing at a website. This is where it gets interesting. morlandtreeservices.com came up and linked to apparently a tree firm based in Penrith. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. My first thought was 'has somebody in the village started up a tree business? wonder who that might be? Its a small place and everyone knows each other so it would be likely I'd know them and wish them the best of luck, even point leads their way. Having looked at the morland.com website and its content I'm pretty sure something else is going on. The questions is what? The about us page suggests they are not a local firm. Saying they are based in Penrith. Unless they are actually based in the Morland/Penrith area there is some misleading marketing going on here at best. I probably know all the tree surgeons in Penrith area and those I don't know the ones i do will. Its a small world. At the moment if any of my old customers google my old business name they will pointed at this .com website. Building on what I left behind. If I was still trading in the area I would be very concerned. Perhaps a few of you might like to have a look at a few variations on your business names on the internet and see what comes up? e.g. morlandtreeservices.com morlandtreeservices.co.uk morlandtreeservices.net etc. 'Tree Services UK' features in the website. Who are they? (who are you?) I'm interested in finding it if this situation is affecting others perhaps more seriously than its affecting me at the moment. Thoughts please?

I thought holding your hand in the exhaust was a hand warmer in a top handle ;-)

A danger we all face is being drawn into a psychological game of 'yes but!' Where a response can never be adequate and new problem is the result...

Perhaps this trend will continue and perhaps its a good thing? Those commissioning work have a responsibility to ensure the contractors are competent to do the work safely. They carry liability if they do this. In turn we have a responsibility to ensure we are competent to the work we are doing. Whilst I have no doubt there are many people on this forum who are quite capable of doing high quality work they are not qualified for. Qualifications make it much simpler to demonstrate competence especially to clients. If this is a robust trend it should enable us to charge a premium to pay for that qualified person which in turn helps us either afford the training / qualification or get a return on that investment. For me this feels a lot like a repeat of what happened to the outdoor education industry. Outdoor education, like most things started with people with no formal industry specific training or qualifications. Not always but most of the time it worked quite well. Experience counted as adequate proof of competence for a long time and people were learning on the job. As I remember it, the late 80's risk assessments started to appear. The resistance was massive... "You can't can't predict the unpredictable." "Our work is different" The situation is to dynamic" Now they routinely work with risk assessment, why wouldn't they? In the background, good but unqualified instructors tried to justify their existence unable to afford the training and assessments and unsure how to work in the future. It seemed impossible. Then in 1993 there was a terrible canoeing accident. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_Bay_canoeing_tragedy ) Following that and other incidents the Adventure Licencing Authority was formed. Once that was in place outdoor education centres needed a licence to work with young people. To obtain a licence a business inspection would include things like staff competence, systems for ensuring staff competence plus related issues like quality of equipment/inspection, vehicle suitability etc. Now in 2018, if a child is going on an Activity experience the risk of totally incompetent, inexperienced, under resourced, non caring provision is greatly reduced because of this licence and most of the children are safer as a result. Its not perfect but its much better than it was in helping customers choose safe provision. During the transition there was a lot of discomfort in the industry and i have no doubt that some of the work force didn't survive due to a lack of ability or opportunity to adapt. We should be able to learn from that and seriously look at industry wide supervision and professional development. Perhaps Arb association approval is a step in the right direction? Perhaps the Arb association need to do something different? Perhaps we need something else? I don't have the answers but with an increasingly litigation aware society I suspect sooner or later we will need something and if we don't take control of it civil servants will after a number of high profile incidents become intolerable.

That two pulley system is interesting but I can see how pulleys may get knocked about. Perhaps 'rigging rings' would be better than pulleys in that application?

I think running two ropes of one bollard is not a good idea. Much to much chance of the ropes rubbing against each other under load. I have used two separate bollard type devices on the odd occasion I needed two ropes on the same section of wood and there are two bollard lowering devices available. I have seen some massive pieces caught on a one pulley system. It's really important that with big loads the rope is allowed to run. It is also important to estimate the loads involved and not go mad!

Of course Joe. Its not often I choose a lowerable system. Mostly because of what it requires from the ground crew and I do know of at least one climber who cut through his line between the ground level tie in point and the top of the tree. Nasty accident. One of the things i come across in the industry is a massive range of knowledge in terms of climbing, rigging, rescue etc. I also come across a massive range of enthusiasm and interest! I sometimes work with people who simply don't know enough. and its difficult to find time to support their development whilst on site. I like this sort of thread because it stimulates conversation and generates ideas ?

When possible , one of the advantages of srt is the possibility of climbing on a lowerable system. With a good enough team this can make for more straight forward rescues unless line or anchor is compromised. I think in many situations rigging gear, in reality could make for very effective rescue. Good three man or bigger teams have more options when it comes to dealing with nasty accidents.

On fairly clean woodland ground what sort of size of timber is it possible to pull out with a portable capstan winch?