Good post Footster, your mention of the possible differences between the Service and Civilian approach to health and safety reminded me that the Health and Safety at work Act is binding on the Crown (although the Secretary of State may overide certain requirements). An employer is required to provide, so far as is reasonably practicable, a safe place of work, safe systems of work, safe plant or machinery, etc. But what is "reasonably practicable"?
Reasonably practicable implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice ( whether in terms of time, money, effort, etc) necessary to avert the risk on the other. If the sacrifice is dissproportionate to the risk the duty is discharged.
When managing risk both the likelyhood of the happening and the severity should it occur must be considered
Was a valid risk management exercise undertaken?
When the outcome was 14 deaths plus the loss of a £30m(?) aircraft what sacrifice would have been necessary in preventative measures before they were considered dissproportionate
This is not meant to imply that those on the ground were not doing their job but that the policy makers who control the purse strings take a lot of convincing.
Last edited by Papa Whisky Alpha; 21st June 2007 at 23:04.
Reason: on reading my post it did not come out as intended