Jamie Jones

Some very fair points raised here and it just goes to show that cross transferring regulations from on industry to another is not as easy as HSE think... What works in erecting steal structure with quantifiable anchor points with big open spaces does not and will not transfer to many of the trees that Arborists have to deal with. This also raises another issue.. Marc is and has taken a great deal of time to prove himself and quantify his business to the Arb Association... He is also competing with many who aren't AA registered. But is the AA really backing his and the industries corner with the HSE? It seems like the HSE can't make this work practically and they have simply passed the buck on the the AA and said sort it. Have the AA actually had any meaningful conversation to argue the relevant points back as to how much of the working at height regs? Marc also states that the majority of his competition are not AA registered.... Is that a reflection on the AA and its perceived value to the industry. Lets be honest no one wants to be working unsafely or have an accident? But I have looked at registering with the AA and really don't see any benefit to being part of it as a small business. I view it like many other self appointed official bodies (And that includes unions and religion as well) it is simply a self funding organisation that is in it for themselves and their own benefit to lord it over others. When in reality they have nothing to offer in real terms. I don't wish to be rude or discourteous as I am sure that it may float some peoples boats to be in it.

Thanks for the reply... But we can only give feed back on what we are shown... So we need to see what is actually going to be going out.... before it becomes ICOP...

See this page... Has the Draft Document and feedback survey. Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2> <h1 class=...

Last chance to give feed back on Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2> <h1 class=... This is the feed back that I have given: While this document seem to be comprehensive it is also very lacking in detail and it will fail many in the industry. I would therefore say that it is not fit for purpose at this stage. The reason for this is very clear to me for the following reasons: 1) When I look at a lot of people I know who work in the Arb industry who climb, many of them are dyslexic or don't have the best reading and writing skills. This document fails these people as there are no visual aids to assist. I would say that to get this ICOP to work for the people it is intended for you really need to pack it with visual aids like pictures (Photos, Art Work and Diagrams) to get the content message across. 2) When you look at the balance of the document... There is 34 pages of content, but when you look at the actual 'working at height' aspect and application there is only 8x pages at best. When you then look at the main body of where the greatest risk is and that is probably climbing using rope access. there is only 3x pages of content. Again there is no visual content, although you have a fancy but pointless graphic. 3) When you have covered off the equipment to be used, the regulations around the use of the equipment, The record keeping and LOLER inspections. The biggest issue is your anchor point/points in the tree. This is the point where no amount of legislation that is introduced can be applied to and where there is a gapping whole in why HSE have not taken this on board themselves and bullied the Arb Association in to producing this document. There is multiple mentions of anchor points and anchors. But surely this is where the whole system fall down. Why is there not a dedicated section on this? I really think that this document needs to reflect the end users needs and not the Arb Association minimal requirements.

Well the Hook has arrived and I got to use it today with the CT Roll n Lock progress capture device. Have to say it is a great bit of kit and easy to use. Although I have to admit it did take me two attempts to get across to the other tree? as I forgot to put the Hook line in my foot ascender to aid leverage on the roll n lock.?? Nothing like doing things the hard way?????

What top handle saw is that?

Well I have thought about it for too long so I have ordered the full Captain Hook Kit and a CT Roll n Lock progress capture device. I will try with the CT Roll n Lock and with an eye to eye Prusic chord and a micro pulley to see what works best.

Sadly I can't get a lorry around to the garden, so it would have to be delivered to the front and walked around...If I move these can be disassembled from the inside and relocated. If I eventually get a bigger unit in the form of an agricultural metal building I could use this inside as a second level security.

Having the age old problem that everyone in this business has when working from home. The home office is taking over the house and I have run out of storage space in the garage.. I have been looking at Flat Pack Containers (Standard & Insulated) and Flat Pack Container Offices. of the approximate size of 2mx4m that I can put up in the garden. I was wondering if anyone has any experience of the flat pack container and offices? The plus point is they are reasonable secure and if you need to relocate them they are easy to disassemble.from the inside. I have already checked an planing is not an issue. •Flat Pack Containers (Standard) - Breathable buy would be be very hot in the summer and cold in the winter. So the effect of this on kit with fuel in them and condensation might be an issue. •Flat Pack Containers (Insulated) - As secure as the standard container and hopefully removes the condensation and the extreme temperature issues. •Flat Pack Container Offices. - I would split the space 50/50 between office/paperwork on one side and hand tools/equipment (Chainsaws, Strimmers & Hedge Trimmers etc)

??

It is for Chopped up mass

I would guess it depends on what builders bags you get.... Our builders/Landscape merchants have 1.2x1.2 x0.8... So not far off 1m cubed.... But to be pedantic ? 5-6 big builders bags or 6-7 smaller builder?

Just for a visual aspect 5x cubic metre is roughly 5x big builders dumpy bags (the type of bags they deliver sand, stone etc from the back of a lorry)

A daft problem.... I have recently replaced my vehicle (Pick-Up with a Canopy) and I need to keep it tidy as it is also the family vehicle. Problem is that all my chainsaws all seem to leak oil all over the boot liner. I am regularly emptying the back out to clean it out and jet wash it... It is getting very annoying as I can't put anything nice in the back for the family. So I wondered how everyone else is getting around this problem? I have a number of different chainsaws of different sizes (25cc, 30cc, 60cc, 79cc and a couple of top handle saws as well) and rear have the same kit in the back on consecutive days. I am struggling to find a workable solution that fits with all my other kit.

I was wondering if anyone has a DMM Captain Hook Kit or has used one... is it is worth the money... It looks a good bit of kit.... But with the two rope rule now in place is it more of a problem to effectively use? What length of rope comes with the kit option? I am interested in peoples views.....

I trained in September 2019 and qualified October 2019 on the Climbing & Aerial Rescue. The whole course was done with single DRT & Flipline/Lanyard.... Great Course, Instructor and Examiner. It was mentioned that the two rope method was coming in very soon and at that point they they had no guidelines from the NPTC as to how that should be taught and they (the instructors) were looking at how they taught it. We didn't get any instruction or practice on the two rope system as that had not been implemented in the training or qualification criteria. The only thing that was explain was it would be a doubling up of the DRT method on what should be a separate anchor point... I have asked the training company if they are going to be doing a day with a demonstration and explanation of how the law now has to be implemented. I am waiting to hear back as to what is being organised... I would not wish to knock the training company or it's instructors as they are very good at what they do. I think that the problem is with the Arboricultural Association. Looking at their website it only seems to have a ‘draft for consultation’ for the second edition of the AA’s ‘Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height’ (ICoP) – First edition published in 2015. So nothing seems to have been finalised as of yet. So where that leaves us professionally I don't know as the ICoP has not been finalised, does that mean we have to implement it? Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2> <h1 class=...

I don’t see the engine lasting if it is going to be a towing vehicle especially in an area with hills. Everyone knows that you can’t beat cc’s and torque. Sticking turbos on smaller engines to try and replicate to power is never going to be a long term solution. You certainly wouldn’t want to own one outside of warranty and that is if Isuzu will cover it under warranty.

The Gear Ratios are better suited for towing in the 1.9 compared to the 2.5. But the farmers in Wales don’t seem to like the 1.9.

The Rodeo was a great vehicle... but the D-Max is different. The also seemed to be a change of attitude when the D-Max can on the market with manufactures issues. Isuzu UK wasn’t interested in sorting them out and the dealers seemed to take the same approach. I had a D-Max 2.5 Utah... the dealer was crap from start to finish. I had my brand new vehicle from the Mid Wales Dealer David Taylor Garages. went to collect in the agreed day only to find out that the vehicle I had chosen in they yard (One that was already in stock) was then sold to someone else. I then had to wait for a replacement vehicle and again that wasn’t ready on the collection day.. I got loads of rubbish about it being other people fault. The vehicle was then rushed through the PDI (that’s if they did it) and the extras was fitted on really badly. boot line cracked. The wrong electrical connectors for the tow bar. They also cut out the reversing light wires. Couldn’t get the bumper back on straight. When the vehicle was returned to have things fixed and a new boot liner. The canopy top wasn’t put back straight a the bumper was still miss aligned. I asked for the dealer principle to give me a call on the on going issues and never heard back. I paid an independent to do the issues out in the end because it was another two hour round trip. After three months I found out that they had not cleared the finance on my trade in vehicle and I had to make a number of requests to get this done only to be given a number of lies. Eventually at the four month stage I had to give them till the end of the day to get the trade in vehicle finance cleared of court proceeding would be issued that night. when the vehicle had an electrical issue and broke down they would only recover the vehicle back the the dealer where it was purchased and not the next nearest dealer. At this stage the relationship had totally broken down the the dealer and I had no faith that their mechanics could do anything more complicated than change the windscreen wipers. After a short conversation with authorised recovery company that I didn’t want the vehicle to go to that dealer and why. They refused to pick the vehicle up. i had to pay an independent garage to collect my vehicle and repair it. So the warranty was not worth the paper it was written on. i also had taken various matters up with Isuzu UK and they weren’t interested and were very unhelpful in everything I took up with them. I had made a number of postings on the internet about the problems and the dealer rang me up and threatened to sue me for slander? after a long discussion he realised it was all true and offered a way forward. He had made some promises in how he was going to rebuild the relationship one was for the engine Ecuador’s to have the update and the other was for a 36k free service. I have never wanted anything for nothing as this was not what it was about and made comments to that effect in relation to the free service. I was told that if I piped in the evidence would be done free of charge while I waited.. I tried to get this done on two occasions the dealership wouldn’t entertain this and said there was a charge for having this done and it would have to be booked in with a couple of weeks notice. As I wasn’t getting anywhere I rang back on both occasions asking for the dealer principle to give me a call back.. Unsurprisingly I never had a call back. The dealer principles promises were never honoured. The Izusu 2.5 D-Max suffered from issues where it regens too often and dumps fuel in the oil and blows the engine up.. Isuzu also doesn’t cover this under warranty for some reason. My truck truck started doing the regen far to often and although the oil level wasn’t rising It wasn’t worth the risk of keeping it. So it had to go and got traded in at the three year stage with only about 38-39,000 on the clock. The 2.5 always struggled to pull off with a trailer on a slight hill and I would often have to use the low ratio gears. The new D-Max’s are only a 1.9 engine and that is never going to last as a towing vehicle. I also understand that these also suffer similar issues and Isuzu are still no better on the warranty taking to other locals who have the new vehicle. I won’t have another Isuzu because of the Vehicle, Isuzu UK lack of warranty and the dealer broke more promises than plates at a free wedding.

Isuzu warranty is no existent, even the breakdown recovery cover didn't recover me. . And Isuzu's have a number of issues that also don't get covered.

We all know that it is not the best conceived piece of legislation .... If that is the case then the H&S aspect has failed and the whole aspect of what the ICOP contains need to have a consultation period. To throw up the issues raised and for it to be adjusted. Because of an accident happens as a result of the ICOP then the AA will be liable....

Has anyone got or tried out a Line Launcher 40 002 Series? It uses Firearms .22 blank cartridges to launch a throwlin. But if you can aim it and it was accurate, it could save a fair amount of time messing about. Interested in people view if you have tried it out.. UK Importer: https://workware.co.uk/product/40-002-rl-series-line-launcher/ Sold Here: https://www.northernarbsupplies.co.uk/catapults/2998-line-launcher-0084882003250.html Video Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZOY-5RSHxY

Interesting comment as I have not long done my Climbing and Rope Rescue... I am soon to be doing the Chainsaw in a tree course and will have to implement the new system. But at this stage the training company and their instructors are still working out how the new system is to be implemented. I am hoping that will do a demonstration and information day to cover what we should know. I have to say that I was very lucky that we had a very good trainer and assessor for out course.... The trainer was doing a 5x day course and because he wanted us to be good and pack in as much as he could he gave use an extra day and came in on a Saturday to do it... Top man?? The assesor also added value to what we was doing in the assessment..??

Not sure I would want to use it near an airport.?? You might have a visit from the armed police..??

I have a 19 plate 3.2 Ranger Wildtrak and when I go to the on board AdBlue display it doesn't give me a miles to refill. It just states 'AdBlue Status OK' is there an option to change it to miles?