agent_smith
New member
- Location
- Townsville
I am presently conducting research into various national competency standards for assessing arborist tree climbers – beginning with my home country (Australia). So far, the picture is fairly grim.
The industry as a whole does not have a great public image (in Australia) – eg when compared to industrial rope access (which has long since tidied up its assessment processes, content and quality).
The principal drivers (as I see it) – are the legislative framework and the competency assessment requirements that directly relate to arborists.
For the USA – I found the following:
[ ] https://www.fs.fed.us/treeclimbing/policy/2015_04_22NTCGweb.pdf
[ ] https://www.isa-arbor.com/Portals/0...ns/cert-Application-TW-Climber-Specialist.pdf (voluntary)
[ ] ANSI https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/store/product/122/
[ ] https://tcia.org/TCIA/Blog_Items/2016/Tree_Pruning_to_ANSI_Standards.aspx
Warning – technical content ahead:
From the ‘AHC’ training package in Australia (link https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHC )
Direct links to current Australian national competency standards:
[ ] Unit: AHCARB317 Dismantle trees https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHCARB317
[ ] Unit: AHCARB319 Use arborist climbing techniques https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHCARB319
I have openly criticized these units to relevant Australian authorities. My criticisms relate to the following loopholes which can easily be exploited by training organizations:
For unit AHCARB317 (Dismantle trees):
There is a loophole in the ‘Performance Evidence’ section...where it allows an assessor the choice of either:
1. Climbing techniques; or
2. A boom type elevating work platform (EWP) - I think Americans call this a 'man lift'?
This means a student could walk away from the assessment with a qualification that allows him to dismantle trees without actually ever having used rope climbing techniques or having used a powered cutting tool while suspended by his fall protection system PPE! This is a major oversight – and it is alarming that this loophole was allowed to slip through the cracks and get endorsed at a national level.
Furthermore, there is no requirement to assess that the student can plan and use an 'escape route' while performing a cut with a powered tool at height. If something goes wrong and the student is in danger of entrapment or being struck/crushed by the cut branch/limb...therefore he needs to plan and be able to 'escape' out of the danger pathway (rather than being pinned/injured).
Some training organizations will take the easier option if they can get away with it (ie faster, cheaper assessment process).
There is a loophole with the requirement to use a powered cutting tool. In the ‘Performance Evidence’ section of the unit, the word ‘cut’ is used. It does not specifically state; ‘make a cut using a powered cutting tool’.
This loophole can be exploited by a training organization. A student could walk away with a qualification for dismantling trees having only used a hand saw - never having been assessed in using powered tools at height while under rope suspension.
(and this further relates to using backup fall protection in case one line gets cut).
For unit AHCARB319 (Use arborist climbing techniques):
There are loopholes in the ‘Performance Evidence’ section...
There is no requirement to use a harness system that is specifically designed for tree climbing and mobility. A student could walk away with a qualification without ever having used a harness system fitted with a 'bridge' or having never used a rigid seat (‘bosuns chair’). In my opinion, all students should be assessed in using harness systems with and without rigid seats. Long duration suspension work in a harness can cause issues/discomfort.
There is no requirement to use both a mechanical rope ascension system and a non-mechanical ascension system (ie no requirement to assess both types). In my opinion, a student must be assessed in both types of systems – including hybrid (mixed) systems.
Examples of ‘mechanical systems’:
[ ] Rope wrench
[ ] Akimbo
[ ] Zigzag
Examples of ‘Non mechanical systems’
[ ] Slide and grip hitches
Examples of ‘Hybrid’ (mixed) systems’
[ ] Hitch hiker
[ ] Any mix of hardware + software to create a climbing system
There is no requirement assess that a student can achieve a stable, balance work position without the use of his hands (ie release both hands – to prove balance and stability). A student could walk away with a qualification without actually having demonstrated that he can release both hands and still achieve a balanced, stable work position.
There are loopholes with the way knot tying skills are assessed. There is a ‘shopping list’ of knots that an assessor is supposed to assess. Refer to the ‘Performance Evidence’ section of the unit – where 19 knots are listed + select from 1 of 4 slide and grip hitches. I have several issues with the way this is communicated to assessors:
[ ] The shopping list of knots is listed ad hoc – it should be logically ordered into:
1. End-to-end joining knots
2. Fixed eye knots
3. Hitches.
With further sub-division of hitches into:
Load control (eg Munter hitch)
Slide and grip (eg Prusik hitch, Distel hitch, etc
Noose (eg #409 Poachers noose, #1120 Scaffold noose)
Binder (eg Clove hitch, Constricto hitch, etc)
There is no requirement to assess that the diameter ratio selected between slide and grip hitches and host rope is within optimum range (ie you can’t just use any random diameter cord).
There is no requirement to assess that the student can distinguish between knots that are jam resistant versus knots that are vulnerable to jamming.
There is no requirement to assess that the student understands and can distinguish between knots that are inherently secure versus knots that are vulnerable to certain loading profiles.
The list of loopholes in the assessment is long.... I'll stop here.
The industry as a whole does not have a great public image (in Australia) – eg when compared to industrial rope access (which has long since tidied up its assessment processes, content and quality).
The principal drivers (as I see it) – are the legislative framework and the competency assessment requirements that directly relate to arborists.
For the USA – I found the following:
[ ] https://www.fs.fed.us/treeclimbing/policy/2015_04_22NTCGweb.pdf
[ ] https://www.isa-arbor.com/Portals/0...ns/cert-Application-TW-Climber-Specialist.pdf (voluntary)
[ ] ANSI https://wwv.isa-arbor.com/store/product/122/
[ ] https://tcia.org/TCIA/Blog_Items/2016/Tree_Pruning_to_ANSI_Standards.aspx
Warning – technical content ahead:
From the ‘AHC’ training package in Australia (link https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHC )
Direct links to current Australian national competency standards:
[ ] Unit: AHCARB317 Dismantle trees https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHCARB317
[ ] Unit: AHCARB319 Use arborist climbing techniques https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/AHCARB319
I have openly criticized these units to relevant Australian authorities. My criticisms relate to the following loopholes which can easily be exploited by training organizations:
For unit AHCARB317 (Dismantle trees):
There is a loophole in the ‘Performance Evidence’ section...where it allows an assessor the choice of either:
1. Climbing techniques; or
2. A boom type elevating work platform (EWP) - I think Americans call this a 'man lift'?
This means a student could walk away from the assessment with a qualification that allows him to dismantle trees without actually ever having used rope climbing techniques or having used a powered cutting tool while suspended by his fall protection system PPE! This is a major oversight – and it is alarming that this loophole was allowed to slip through the cracks and get endorsed at a national level.
Furthermore, there is no requirement to assess that the student can plan and use an 'escape route' while performing a cut with a powered tool at height. If something goes wrong and the student is in danger of entrapment or being struck/crushed by the cut branch/limb...therefore he needs to plan and be able to 'escape' out of the danger pathway (rather than being pinned/injured).
Some training organizations will take the easier option if they can get away with it (ie faster, cheaper assessment process).
There is a loophole with the requirement to use a powered cutting tool. In the ‘Performance Evidence’ section of the unit, the word ‘cut’ is used. It does not specifically state; ‘make a cut using a powered cutting tool’.
This loophole can be exploited by a training organization. A student could walk away with a qualification for dismantling trees having only used a hand saw - never having been assessed in using powered tools at height while under rope suspension.
(and this further relates to using backup fall protection in case one line gets cut).
For unit AHCARB319 (Use arborist climbing techniques):
There are loopholes in the ‘Performance Evidence’ section...
There is no requirement to use a harness system that is specifically designed for tree climbing and mobility. A student could walk away with a qualification without ever having used a harness system fitted with a 'bridge' or having never used a rigid seat (‘bosuns chair’). In my opinion, all students should be assessed in using harness systems with and without rigid seats. Long duration suspension work in a harness can cause issues/discomfort.
There is no requirement to use both a mechanical rope ascension system and a non-mechanical ascension system (ie no requirement to assess both types). In my opinion, a student must be assessed in both types of systems – including hybrid (mixed) systems.
Examples of ‘mechanical systems’:
[ ] Rope wrench
[ ] Akimbo
[ ] Zigzag
Examples of ‘Non mechanical systems’
[ ] Slide and grip hitches
Examples of ‘Hybrid’ (mixed) systems’
[ ] Hitch hiker
[ ] Any mix of hardware + software to create a climbing system
There is no requirement assess that a student can achieve a stable, balance work position without the use of his hands (ie release both hands – to prove balance and stability). A student could walk away with a qualification without actually having demonstrated that he can release both hands and still achieve a balanced, stable work position.
There are loopholes with the way knot tying skills are assessed. There is a ‘shopping list’ of knots that an assessor is supposed to assess. Refer to the ‘Performance Evidence’ section of the unit – where 19 knots are listed + select from 1 of 4 slide and grip hitches. I have several issues with the way this is communicated to assessors:
[ ] The shopping list of knots is listed ad hoc – it should be logically ordered into:
1. End-to-end joining knots
2. Fixed eye knots
3. Hitches.
With further sub-division of hitches into:
Load control (eg Munter hitch)
Slide and grip (eg Prusik hitch, Distel hitch, etc
Noose (eg #409 Poachers noose, #1120 Scaffold noose)
Binder (eg Clove hitch, Constricto hitch, etc)
There is no requirement to assess that the diameter ratio selected between slide and grip hitches and host rope is within optimum range (ie you can’t just use any random diameter cord).
There is no requirement to assess that the student can distinguish between knots that are jam resistant versus knots that are vulnerable to jamming.
There is no requirement to assess that the student understands and can distinguish between knots that are inherently secure versus knots that are vulnerable to certain loading profiles.
The list of loopholes in the assessment is long.... I'll stop here.
