Originally Posted by VFE
Originally Posted by 2close
I could detail a frightening list of activities that we undertake as FIs and expect our students to undertake, when dual and solo, that could have legal repercussions on us should it all go Pete Tong, that would make your hair stand on end.
Would be interested in hearing some of these scenarios!
VFE.
I should have clarified the adjective 'frightening' referred to the size of the list not the activities themselves!
What I mean by that is that there are scores of workplace activities that we undertake every day and that we also expect our students to perform, all of which are covered by H&S legislation.
Some hazards require formal, documented risk assessments to be conducted and safe working practices established by the development of written method statements, which in turn have to be communicated to employees (and in turn to any other persons affected by those workplace activities, i.e. students).
That is not to say that every single activity requires a formal, documented process to be recorded and there are some activities that we can accept as being normal, everyday actions, e.g. walking from A to B. That would be going well and truly down the road of conkers bonkers! Saying that, the insurers would probably have us risk assess breathing, if they could have their way!!!!!
However, walking from A to B across an active manouevering area could be a different kettle of fish. It is here that our collective bums could be severely bitten should a student get walloped by a taxiiing aircraft. Where is is written down that the student was instructed to wear a high vis vest, was informed that flashing strobes and taxi/landing lights could indicate an engine was about to start, that the bloke opening his clenched fist meant that an aircraft's brakes were about to be released? These 'tip of the iceberg' items are all taken for granted by ourselves with our years of experience but we can easily forget that some of our students have never set foot on anything smaller and less controlled than Gatwick.
Of course, as responsible FIs we tell our students these things but where can we prove it when the wheel does come off? As some wise sage once told me 'the spoken word is not worth the paper it's written on!' This is where our processes are seriously lacking. Part of the problem is regulatory authority. Who is responsible? CAA? Nope!! JAA? Nope!! In fact, it is your local authority, usually the Environmental Health Department, with highly qualified Environmental Health Officers and Health & Safety Officers who have amassed years of relevant experience in the field of general aviation activities.
This lack of enforcement results in a lack of regulatory compliance.
The other issue lies within the grey area between what an organisation considers to be flight safety (which does fall within the remit of the CAA) and occupational health & safety. Some ground based flight safety activities undoubtedly still fall within the latter category.
It is the employer's legal duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable (and therein lies a debate in itself), that all of these policies, practices and procedures are put in place and where the employer has 5 employees (full or part time and self-employed instructors would be categorised as 'employees') or more these have to be documented. It is our legal duty as employees to ensure we comply with our employers' instructions.
I foresee the shortcomings in our present system being addressed by EASA, whereby all training facilities will have to be formally registered, inspected and audited in the way that FTOs are at present with formal documenation for....well, everything. This will place an onerous and high cost burden on some small operations that could see some going to the wall - H&S consultancy does not come cheap.
Wow, that paints a dreary picture doesn't it? The fact is it doesn't need to be all doom and gloom. All it takes is a little thought and planning.
PPPPPPP.
