Tree Dynamics and Integrated Risk Assessment

Now that we know this course is the same as that taught in Canada I would suggest that $495 is way to much money for the course. Guy is right that $250 per day is a lot of money, this is the main reason I do not attend Arbormaster or Arborculture Training Canada courses. If you add on transportation, lost wages and profits, hotel, food and transportation a two day seminar is more than $1000 in actual cost.

As for the course I still wonder about pulling a tree with zip line and being able to assess it. Does seeing some computer analysis from Erk Brudi, or looking at compensatory growth in decayed trees play a part in this course?
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you add on transportation, lost wages and profits, hotel, food and transportation a two day seminar is more than $1000 in actual cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proudly have had my guys do 3 of the courses each, as an employer great to know that they are abreast of the most current and proven systems for completing tree work. The sacrifice not only ends there....how about workers who take pride in themselves as professionals who safely and efficiently complete tree work. How do you tell a person such as this that they will get paid $15-18 per hour? You can't. They value themselves greater because they are more valuable.

I can't say I know ACTE business any better than I know your's Mrtree, but I might specultate flying about God's green earth, living in someone else's building (hotel) and being away from your family 200+ days a year are expenses to be shared with the client.

It is a far better system than the island syndrome previously harboured by the industry (and still by many) whereby dissemination of knowledge occurs only by osmosis from the leader of the crew.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the course I still wonder about pulling a tree with zip line and being able to assess it. Does seeing some computer analysis from Erk Brudi, or looking at compensatory growth in decayed trees play a part in this course?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and Oranges my friend. Van Wassener provides; a quantified number, in a report, for clients. Nuestater promotes a rudimentary method of applying force (in a lot of cases far greater than wind) on a tree, in order to allow workers to diligently evaluate the tree's capability to sustain the work perscribed. I don't ever recall the method promoted for persribing quantified risk potential, for formal documents, for client's records that may be used in legal manners.

Now if my guys use it to evaluate a tree, provide it with a rudimentary risk rating for the work persribed, I assure you that despite the absense of computers, sensors and complex algorithims, that our evaluation of the task far exceeds that of 80% of my local peers. And I would alos assure you that the MOL would find our system (used to some degree for every work project) far more diligent than the status quo.

I question not the expense, for the cost of raising the bar of our profession of Arboriculture will only bring profit in quality of life, public regard, social status and financial gain.
 
Hey Mangoes that's a pretty solid testimonial.

How comprehensive is the course workbook?

In my work I look at tree risk more broadly and longer-term, but it sounds like the nats approach may fill a need.

"I don't ever recall the method promoted for persribing quantified risk potential, for formal documents, for client's records that may be used in legal manners."

I have heard Mr. Brudi and Mr. Detter describe its application in those terms. So maybe it's Granny Smith and Gala...
 
Im not sure what to say Mango other than saying that paying an outside company for training is not the way to go. Arboriculture Training Canada has some excellent instructors but we need to make our businesses daily learning experiences first. The owner must make the company a learning environment, not send people out for two day course to compensate. If the owner and employees are not widely read than courses are not much use. I have seen many people completely lost at the Tree Dynamics and Intergrated Risk Assessment because they do not have the basic background. That being said Mango I am sure your company is dilegent and far ahead of the crowd. Come to rural Ontario if you want to see bad.

As for tree pulling have you read Dwayne's article in the new Tree Service Magazine that was recently published out of Vancouver? This seems to indicate some equivilancy between a SIM tree pull and the zip line. I also mentioned Brudi's computer analysis as I would bet that Neustater shows computer generated models done by Brudi to show forces focusing at defects.
 
[ QUOTE ]
paying an outside company for training is not the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]This statement is so broad, it cannot be true in all or even most cases. Maybe some companies do not need outside training but most would benefit. Most of the good companies I know of diligently train their people but also reach outside now and then for something specific or something fresh.

That's hard to criticize.
tongue.gif
 
We at Kramer Tree feel outside training is an essential part of our busness plan. We do not sent all of the tree works but we do sent the leaders and the training has made an economical impact to the company with reduced and for 3 years eliminated injuries. The bennefits do not come overnight but they will come by changes in the culture of the company and the industry as long as the leaders have brought in and are practicing what is being preached. In house training is also a huge part of our busness plan. Having an outside resourse back up and expand on in house training has huge bennefits. If the tree workers see and hear industry leaders practicing safe sound tree work at a very professional level it tends to catch on and every body wins. The client wins by having the work competed at a high level, the company is selling for a higher rate and the workers get paid more because they have more value to the company.
 
[ QUOTE ]
As for tree pulling have you read Dwayne's article in the new Tree Service Magazine that was recently published out of Vancouver?

[/ QUOTE ]


Is this the same Tree Services magazine that is published by Moose River Publishing in Vermont? I didn't see that article in the May issue, which is the latest that I have.
 
Re the value of outside classes, this from Dec 2006 Arborist News:

"Universities, as well as private laboratories and government agencies can provide very reliable information from closely interpreted academic research. Regarding pest problems, the first reference off the shelf is often a pesticide manual. PHC considers cultural treatments along with chemicals, because together they provide more effective management. Commercial sources can sometimes be biased, though many provide objective information. Searching the internet can instantly convey invaluable information—and a lot of less useful material.

Personal and anecdotal experience is often worth following, but as The Legends of Arboriculture admit, practitioners can take pride in doing things the same way for twenty years, not knowing they were wrong. **Information anywhere can become inbred, as ideas are repeated back and forth like an echo chamber within an isolated group of people. Only by crosschecking your facts between a range of sources, experience and references can you confirm their reliability**
 
A very interesting thread. I agree with Mangoes, MrTree and Guy on this. I think tod K's statement rounds it up. I'll try and shut the gate a little:

I have written a couple of articles on training issues in the UK, so rather than regurgitating the salient points at length, please refer to the attached article.

It is down to each employer to determine the safe working of their staff, with a particular eye on third party safety. IMHO, I feel this is best achieved by cascading down through the tiers of staff. But this can become stale, or the owners and foremen outdated, not keeping abreast of good research and information. This is why periodic outside training from experts in specific fields is advisable. The choice of trainer must be the employers based on expertise and their ultimate responsibility.

I think Tod's approach is the best - choose your top men wisely (are they investable?) and develop their expertise constantly. Send them away or import a specialist to gain other ideas. Interview a trainer first to get a handle on the curriculum and why it is taught; too many times I train staff, only to have them revert to old or downright dangerous practice, because of peer pressure, or worse, thier stuck in the mud boss!???

What is taught can be discussed between management post training before deciding what to disseminate and why. Everyone can sing from the same hymn sheet. This of course, assumes a responsible attitude of employees. Maturity doesn't always come in step with age, and dissenting staff can be a liability to site safety.

Each company should decide and justify its own code of safe working practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Those companies that are sustainable with fewest customer complaints, lowest injury rate (inc. MSDs
smirk.gif
) and increased profitability, should be rewarded. They should be upheld as industry benchmarks.

What must be avoided, is taking on an outside training system thinking that it covers the employers responsibility - go on a course, the box can be ticked, get on with the job for 5 yrs till you need updating. This is happening in the UK, and the accident rates are the same, and no-one can find an employee with expertise. Thats because employers aren't developing expertise from the basic training system. They want to employ guys and girls with all the 'tickets', expecting them to be profitable, without any expertise???

I would also like to add, that total reliance on science, as a proof of safety, can be very risky. The best consultants in any field, read the research, flick through the books, dig through their experience, maybe seek the opinion of a few collegues, and then finally give measured advice. Science itself is constantly evolving.

In an industry like ours, ALWAYS pay attention to that 6th sense, regardless of who says what, and bearing in mind why.
 

Attachments

[ QUOTE ]
The owner must make the company a learning environment, not send people out for two day course to compensate. If the owner and employees are not widely read than courses are not much use.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record; I don't ever recall stating that Advanced Tree Care's only training program is to hire outside for short courses. It is a fact that I have the experience and knowledge to elevate those of my employees, and we do so in house regularily. I don't ride the production cavalry in to disrupt teachable moments in the field.

What I find is ACTE summarizes and evolves the direction that we lean towards as prfessionals, it is also a secondary methods of explaination of systems we already promote. New explaination of the same topic creates new mental stimulus in the trainee, and they may consider points/topics in different manners. Learning from a different perspective.

Ultimately the attitudes of the various levels of management towards learning and evolving as professionals will be directly reflected by the subordinates.

Always.
 
Guy,

If you want to arrange to see a pull test with a full wind-load analysis and measurements using a dynamometer, elastometer and inclinometer, send me a line.
 
I think that is overkill UFI, a pull test can easily be dome with some throwline, a piece of juicy fruit and a plastic protractor.
 
I am dissappointed that Tree Teacher has not been back to tell us anything about the course. I have a number of questions I was wondering about.

The course is stated as:
Tree Dynamics & Integrated Risk Assessment
2 day module
This course is designed to improve worker safety and train participants in the skills that allow them to estimate the stability of trees structurally by integrating biological, environmental and work risk factors. Tree biology, physiology and how trees interact with their environment (tree dynamics) will provide the basis for understanding how to examine trees critically from a structural failure perspective. Training and practice in field methods of work risk analysis, load testing and pull testing trees to determine strength of temporary anchors and examining root stability prior to commencing work is a major focus of this course.


I am really interested in how pulling trees with a bit of throw line allows you to determine strength and examine root stability. Is there a standardized method that allows for a determination of a safety factor? How does dynamically moving the tree compare with the static methods of Brudi etc.? How do you determine stability by pulling a tree by hand when Brudi suggests that "a reliable determination of tipping safety of trees can only be achieved by stressing a tree under similar conditions created by wind gusts (Inclino method)" and "..stability can be determined by a tension test (inclinometer method). As yet no other reliable method is known for monitoring stability." Mattheck does not provide any information on pulling trees nor does Matheny and Clark.

Futher how does pulling a tree (limb) with throw line allow you to determine a structural problem? Neustaeter has suggested that when a defect occurs the swaying stops at the defects and is a strucrural concern. If you have a defect such as a cavity then you have reduced cross-sectional area, thus I would think there is less area to absorb movement and should movement not me passed through more than in a solid branch? Further is there standardization that allows a determination of the safety factor and allows different individuals to come to the same precise conclusion?
 
I just had to weigh in on this thread. Long post ahead!

With five SIA "pulling tests" completed through my office with help from Phillip VW, Andreas Detter and Erk Brudi I think that developing science for tree assessment is going to be a fantastic help in some cases.

The trees that we tested all made it through this winters severe storms. I was able to give my clients clear information on risk and sleep soundly after delivering the paperwork. Risk assessment is a significant part of our business and we are thrilled to have a way to determine that a tree is stable at a certain load.

We have several more tests scheduled for this summer. I will report back when we have finished.

Currently it is very mportant to note that the actual physical test cannot always be done due to individual tree charecteristics, location etc. Also the material properties of each species green wood must be known and we do not have info on many species here in the PNW at present.

There is an interesting basic method of SIA assessment under development that uses basic tree information to rate a tree safety factor.

Lots of stories among arborists of rudimentary "pulling tests" if you ask around. I have heard about municipal situations where the pull was from a truck and the tree already looked sketchy...if they break it or crack it while testing no worries...just another removal.

I'm sure many of us. like me, have pushed on a suspecttree or tree part to seee what happens.

Julian Dunster and I once pulled over a huge cottonwood that was puzzling him... and going to be removed anyway...with a track hoe so we could see what happened...it was wild!

For commercial practitioners I would say that you should be leery of a "simple" method...what happens if something breaks? You are screwed. The testing that I am learning to perform is not easy to do. You need intruments and gear, training and, if you are like me...help with the anaylsis from the science guys. We send our data to Erk and Andreas for that part.

Dwayne N knows his stuff and is very familiar with the current science. I would like to know more about the method that is being taught in the class. Here is a pic of one of the huge elms that we pulled with Phillip VW.
 

Attachments

  • 87033-DSCF0462(2).webp
    87033-DSCF0462(2).webp
    99.4 KB · Views: 59
Well this has been quite a thread, I had originally wanted to spread the word about some cool courses going on and didn't think this thread would end up where it is. The fact of the matter is that we are all asking for the same thing. The course that is taught through North American Training Solutions is in fact a curriculum collaborative between North American (NATS) and Arboriculture Canada (ACTE) The material, and methodology used within the course is gained from a variety of resources, and hands on experience from top professionals. Brudi's research and methodology is the a foundation and a cornerstone to understanding trees as structures and determining their load bearing capacity. As practitioners, we are often at a loss, lacking the many high tech instruments to gather critical data. OFTEN IN OUR CASE WE NEED TO KNOW IF THIS LIVING ORGANISM WE ARE TYING OUR LIVES TO IS GOING TO HOLD UP TO THE LOADS WE DEMAND OF IT!!!! , not only during climbing operations , but if the work order calls for it rigging as well. Tree biology, physiology, wood mechanics, and potential loading agents are all critical topics which are explored, and demystified for use by practitioners.

I hope this brings some clarity to what to expect in the course. The curriculum covered within, trains practitioners , how to diagnose and treat trees with practical methodology. If you think about it you don't go to the doctor and have them they start cutting you open and trying to fix ailing problems, they run tests gather data and then develop recommendations. This course teaches students how to do the same with, extensive scientific backing, that is presented in a palatable manner that students can then take back with them and use in their daily work practices, as practicing arborists, or by educating clients, or hope fully both!!.
 
Sorry Treeteacher but your post does not bring clarity. I was wondering if you can answer a couple of questions. How does a dynamic pulling test compare with Brudi et. al.'s static test? How do you measure the forces you apply and compare these to those that occur in climbing, rigging and removals? These and the other questions I think are very important, I understand that you are teaching a course but I really wonder about some of the material.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Treeteacher but your post does not bring clarity. I was wondering if you can answer a couple of questions. How does a dynamic pulling test compare with Brudi et. al.'s static test? How do you measure the forces you apply and compare these to those that occur in climbing, rigging and removals? These and the other questions I think are very important, I understand that you are teaching a course but I really wonder about some of the material.

[/ QUOTE ]I hate to agree so easily with mrtree,
blush.gif
but I share some of the same skepticism. This no doubt stems in lage part from my considerable ignorance re pulling tests, but when I hear "The curriculum covered within, trains practitioners , how to diagnose and treat trees with practical methodology.", I have to wonder how much diagnosis and treatment can be informed by the type of pulling described.

Thanks for checking in, Scott, and let us know how future work with pulling goes. I still remember you setting me straight in Columbus--thanks again!
 
This course is coming up soon, I hope somebody will be attending and providing us some feedback on it.

It is unfortunate that the Treeteacher has not joined us for a discussion of the course and the background material. Currently we can only ask questions that arise from information gained from a number of sources. It would have been great to get some specific answers from the people teaching the course.

Guy I am not skeptical, I just do not understand some of the things that this course offers and Dwayne Neustaeter has written about (The simple pull test method pg8-9 in Tree Service Canada Vol.1 Issue 1). They do not make sense to me and unfortunately I cannot fly to Georgia for the discussion I would like to have. Even Treeteachers brief answer really does not say much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom