|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 29, 2016 22:16:28 GMT 12
Latest release fro the Auckland Aero Club:
Dear Members,
Since the changes to the Health and Safety at Work rules, you will have seen our instructors wearing high visibility vests on the Aero Club apron. It has been decided that, to further increase apron safety, this requirement will be extended to the Pilot in Command of all Aero Club aircraft, and to students unaccompanied by their instructors.
Effective January 1st 2017:
Student pilots alone on any apron (for pre-flight, fuelling or securing the aircraft etc.) are required to wear a vest
Students who are accompanied at all times by their instructor do not need to wear a vest
License holders on any apron are required to wear a vest
Vests are not required to be worn once inside the aircraft
etc . . .
And then they wonder why their members just give up and wander off to spend their time (and money) at the tiddlywinks club.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Dec 30, 2016 18:46:22 GMT 12
You just need to get a new wardrobe - throw out the old blacks, blue or green and replace all your shirts with this new fad of yellow. if you can add some reflector strip as well, that puts you into the high end fashion stakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by eieio on Dec 30, 2016 19:50:41 GMT 12
Peter, another reason to join the tiddlywinks club is the forecast $18000 to get a ppl.......jeeez
|
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Dec 31, 2016 9:16:33 GMT 12
Wonder how that compares with say the 1970s compered with income? Mind you the cost of fuel has certainly added to the cost and CAA charges etc etc!
|
|
|
|
Post by joesmith on Dec 31, 2016 10:43:24 GMT 12
You think that's funny.... Avspecs were required to close off the apron in front of their hangar and mark a 30 odd meter transit lane with cones in order roll Mosquito TV959's wing and fuselage into their respective shipping containers under Ardmore's H&S rules. I think that the tower had to be informed of the movements as well??? The provided cones were probably more of a hazard to aircraft or low flying birds than any thing else. Guess the Avspecs staff could not be trusted or are not qualified to "look for traffic" when crossing the road!!
Joe
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Dec 31, 2016 11:19:13 GMT 12
It sounds like the new Ardmore management has nothing better to do than create red tape?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 31, 2016 12:40:15 GMT 12
While many of today's H&S regulations can be bloody annoying, it's also really great to not be attending the funerals of workmates every year who got killed on the job, which is what it was like when I started working in the transport industry 40½ years ago. Plus all the workmates who got horribly maimed, and the toll on families who lost loved ones, or ended up having to deal with surviving loved ones who were missing limbs and other body parts, horribly brain damaged, etc.
I'd rather put up with over-the-top H&S regulations than go back to the old days of constant funerals.
Now if only there was a way to prevent idiots from doing stupid things at level crossings...
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Dec 31, 2016 14:53:05 GMT 12
Re: 'Now if only there was a way to prevent idiots from doing stupid things at level crossings...'
And in 'yards, and on the 'Main. (Don't ask how I know; let's just say 'Long personal experience').
Human nature being what it is, all these 'rules' are really only aimed at the law-abiding amongst us who DON'T offend - the offenders just don't care - or think!! The mantra in most cases seems to be 'it won't happen to me' accompanied with a very niave and touching belief that a train can stop in the same linear-distance as a private car. A fallicy waiting to be repeated again, and again, and again...
Dealing with the consequences of such things can quite ruin one's afternoon....
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Dec 31, 2016 17:38:07 GMT 12
I'd love to see the figures comparing the number of people maimed/killed on the AAC apron in the years up to today and those who undergo such damage over the next five years.
How do you reduce the fatality rate from 0?
I guess it will be similar to the figures showing the reduction in the number of NZ-domiciled airliner hijackings pre and post the introduction of the costly and time-consuming Aviation Security 'Services' checks.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Dec 31, 2016 17:53:17 GMT 12
Times have changed, Peter.
One can always nitpick about a particular aspect of any particular industry, but the fact is that overall, working for a living is considerably safer these days than it used to be forty years ago. The moment you start making exceptions for one particular industry, you undermine workplace safety regulations right across the board. It's like farming being classed as NOT being a dangerous industry, yet they have the highest fatality rates out of any occupation. How's that for political expediency as a result of pressure from vested interests? A bit like Donald Trump consistantly saying one thing on various issues when we all know the truth is something completely different.
I'll admit I was one of the moaners when things got a lot more restrictive in the industry I work in, but a few years down the track, it's great to see my workmates coming to work, doing their jobs, then going home at the end of each shift still safe & sound, instead of the number of them who used to leave the workplace in a hearse every year, or in an ambulance if they survived it and I don't moan about it any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jan 1, 2017 15:26:22 GMT 12
But that's the point, no one has been killed or maimed at AAC apron; precisely the opposite on the rail network where obviously things needed to change.
Perhaps a highvis vest would have prevented people walking in to rotating propellers in the past...
On a certain construction site for which I am site-safe registered and inducted I cannot use my step ladder (scaffold instead - less than 3 metres high) and must wear safety glasses (I'm using a battery screwdriver) both requirements of which have contributed to a tripping, falling, and finger-injury hazard that didn't exist before had I been allowed to work in the sane way I have for the past 30 years without injury.
|
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Jan 1, 2017 15:40:26 GMT 12
kiwithrottlejockey If you consider the H & S regulations discussed in this thread are all necessary, why have you introduced the description of their being "over the top"?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 1, 2017 20:38:21 GMT 12
“Over-the-top” was actually poking the borax at those people who despise H&S regulations and always describe them as over-the-top.
They are usually the same people who mouth off at trade unions, yet they quite happily accept working conditions that were often fought-for in the past by union members.
|
|
|
|
Post by suthg on Jan 1, 2017 21:24:42 GMT 12
The other issue is that if someone gets maimed or injured or killed within the apron area for Avspecs then they would be liable to fine in excess of $65,000 (let alone awards to family of said victim) for negligent safety barriers, warnings, training, supervision etc by Worksafe NZ. It is easier to comply than deal to the legal fees and fines that WILL come when an incident occurs without taking the precautions.
I work on a designated Major Hazard Facility which has 6 chemicals that can kill you within 3 minutes of exposure. We treat dust in the eyes as a major hazard and wearing safety glasses is compulsory as are boots, Hi-Viz, fully covered arms and legs everywhere and safety headgear in most places. As I said, its easier to comply and be safer (no argument - they pay anyway) and get home to family in one piece every night. jm2c Graeme
|
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 2, 2017 4:38:34 GMT 12
yeh it has become more about covering your arse than protecting it!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 2, 2017 8:48:15 GMT 12
Covering your arse is actually a bloody good idea when you look at the heavy penalties involved if you are found guilty of an offence under Worksafe NZ regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Jan 2, 2017 10:02:33 GMT 12
Is wearing a fluoro vest quite a hindrance when operating one of AAC's aircraft?
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 2, 2017 10:11:54 GMT 12
I used to really annoy a previous KiwiRail Operations Manager (in Wellington) by occasionally putting on a Tranz Rail-branded flouro vest. This was back in the days when a lot of locomotives were still running around with Tranz Rail branding on them.
Whenever she pulled me up about wearing the “prohibited” Tranz Rail branding, I used to point to the locomotive I was operating, complete with Tranz Rail branding on the side of it and reply, “when you no longer require me to operate Tranz Rail-branded locomotives, I'll stop wearing Tranz Rail-branded clothing.” She never had an answer to that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Jan 2, 2017 12:11:56 GMT 12
So is wearing a fluoro vest quite a hindrance when operating one of AAC's aircraft?
|
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jan 2, 2017 13:00:06 GMT 12
In the early 2000's the RNZAF made vests mandatory and there was at least on serious injury when a vest snagged as a guy climbed down from a stand causing a fall and broken elbow. Unluckily for him medical was called and they were convinced it was only dislocated and tried to pop it back into place.
|
|
