Originally Posted by
bottom rung
Its not precisely the same duty of care; its now in print, rather than implicit.
I think you will find that a
Duty of Care exists from English Common Law and, rather as you suggest, is implicit whenever you
"perform acts or services that could foreseeably adversely affect or harm others". The only difference is that, in this wearying 'elf 'n safety and increasingly litigious culture, the bits relevant to ATSOCAS are now spelt out in CAP774.
So, I would respectfully suggest that the
Duty of Care that existed with FIS remains unchanged - it's just the awareness of it, by those who have both read and understood CAP774, that may have changed.
JD
