|
Post by tbf25o4 on Jan 6, 2017 12:27:22 GMT 12
Speaking of refuelling, At the Kapiti Aero Club, the refuelling bowser was positioned right outside the clubhouse about 3 metres from the building. A helicopter operator (not local) would park his R22 on the refuelling pad and leave the engine running while carrying out a refuel, dispite our repeated requests not to do so. One day I saw him approaching to refuel, so turned the bowser master safety switch, located in the clubhouse off. After a few attempts to get the bowser to work, he came inside demanding to know why he couldn't get it to work. I informed him that should be shut down his engine and then try the bowser it might just work. And so it was!!!
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Jan 6, 2017 12:52:50 GMT 12
Don't count your chickens Baz. Not the first time a builder / building company has declared bankrupt leaving a trail of unpaid creditors not to mention home owners, and it still happens. Stonewood homes rings a bell. Yep we did our research but thems the risks with any major project these days.
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Jan 6, 2017 15:25:19 GMT 12
It erks me that my vigilance could wind me up in court on charges just because some guy doesn't know the rules as well as I do. Interesting as I didn't know that reg, but actually never would want someone inside while refuelling anyway. But I think what you bring up is one of the things the Act is trying to do, that is if someone else sees an issue don't shrug your shoulders and go "Its not my problem" as one day you could be doing something potentially unsafe without realising it. Everyone has different experience levels and noone can possibly know every regulation out there (especially us weekend warriors who do it as a hobby not for a career) and I don't mean just aviation. We live in a technical world now and there are smart people and dumb people but even smart people occasionally do dumb things. There was an engineer in Auckland running an identical CNC to mine. He called a big boring bar into the spindle but didn't realise the next line of code spun it up to 8000RPM. It flew apart and he was killed. At the time the door didn't have safety locks to prevent the spindle running with it open. When we found out we changed our CNC code so that the speed command was changed to 150RPM before a tool change and we all had to make sure the door was closed at tool changes. I had never thought much about something like this happening but possibly due to being a pilot and getting used to cockpit checks I was always checking the RPM of a tool prior to letting it tool change and was teaching anyone I taught on a CNC the same just in case. But until that accident it wasn't part of the safety rules at work. But the accident was reported to as many people and companies with similar machines about the risk so hopefully it won't happen again. But it will make people "in the chain of command" twitchy so lets hope sanity prevails otherwise we'll need permission to put petrol in the car next!
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Jan 6, 2017 16:18:31 GMT 12
In Oregon and New Jersey it is actually illegal to put petrol in your car. An attendant has to do it.
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Jan 6, 2017 21:01:51 GMT 12
In Oregon and New Jersey it is actually illegal to put petrol in your car. An attendant has to do it. Annnnnnd we are done.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 7, 2017 0:07:37 GMT 12
I was on an Eagle Air (Air NZ Link) Beech 1900 one day at Auckland airport after boarding to fly to Masterton and the fuel tanker drove up to fuel the aircraft. The lady captain left the cockpit and told all of us passengers to undo our seatbelts until the refueling was completed. Presumably that was so we could make a quick exit if things turned to custard. It was the only time I have ever been INSTRUCTED to undo my seatbelt in an aeroplane.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Jan 8, 2017 19:08:04 GMT 12
In Oregon and New Jersey it is actually illegal to put petrol in your car. An attendant has to do it. Annnnnnd we are done. And in New Zealand, there would be huge queues at the service stations as we wait for the fuel companies to advertise for, interview, appoint and train the requisite employees.
|
|
|
Post by oj on Jan 9, 2017 13:44:47 GMT 12
I have found this rapidly-populated thread very interesting and pretty well everyone is right in everything they say within their particular context. Anyway, here's my little gem example to add: We purchased a new Lenova tablet computer for Xmas. Among the Important Safety and Handling Information we get this:
"Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) cable and cord notice: WARNING: Handling the cord on this product or cords associated with accessories to this product will expose you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling."
Just how far do you want this to run ......? Perhaps we should only handle our computer cords/cables with PVC gloves! Eh? WTF. Oh, I see, it's presumably OK to use PVC gloves to protect your hands as long as you wash your hands afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 9, 2017 14:27:45 GMT 12
Probably the reason for that is because somebody has sued a company in California, so now companies are arse-covering and result is that warning about PVC.
|
|
|
Post by planewriting on Jan 9, 2017 16:19:21 GMT 12
oj, you are right in saying that pretty well everyone is right in everything they say within their particular context. I think we all agree on that but there is virtually nothing on the topic Peter Lewis started off the thread. The sort of discussion I would like to see here, by way of an example, is how the Auckland Aero Club is going to be able to enforce pilots in visiting aircraft to immediately comply by putting on a high viz tunic the moment they step on to the club's apron at Ardmore. How is a visiting pilot going to know the requirement when the club's newsletters are for the club's membership only? Would the visitors be in breach of the rules if they stepped out without the tunic? What obligations has the club created (knowingly or not) to ensure compliance is met? How well were all the possible scenarios thought through before issuance? As I see it the directive has only led to confusion and I'm sure that was not intended.
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 9, 2017 17:00:37 GMT 12
In my opinion this is purely bureaucratic arse covering. By requiring vests they are seen to be addressing hazard mitigation, should they ever be audited. What hazard scenarios will these vests really protect their wearers from? And how frequently has this hazard historically actually occurred? What about hearing protection from the noise of these potential aircraft threats. For that matter eye protection from objects thrown up by the prop blast. What about head and face protection in case a poor student should trip and fall on the rough tarmac. The list of potential hazards could just go on and on.... Its NOT about safety its purely about arse covering. They could and should achieve a much greater level of safety by ensuring all persons operating around aircraft are well briefed on good safety behaviour when near aircraft. That way they will remain safe even when not draped in floro
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Jan 10, 2017 18:16:32 GMT 12
Touché
|
|
|
Post by John L on Jan 10, 2017 19:11:49 GMT 12
Personally, I think half the trouble is applying "one size fits all" H&S regs to everything, regardless of what's involved and the actual dangers/hazards on the site. Clueless administrators then enforce ridiculous clauses to prevent problems that are not actually problems, "because we have to, and have to cover our arses". Railways, logging, mining and the like, certainly needed the full gamut - my missus has worked in railway infrastructure and maintenance, here in Perth, for many years, and was a safety rep with all the qualifications. She eventually chucked it in, because going head to head with management to get even basic, sensible procedures applied to certain aspects of the job just got too hard. Middle management didn't want actual, helpful meaningful improvements - just enough of the "approved" procedures to look right on the manifesto and squeak through an audit.
It sounds as though AAC hasn't done a proper evaluation, looked at where any problems might be, looked at the options, consulted with those involved in any changes and made operating changes to suit any potential problems - just hit the "flouro vests for everyone" button, so they can be seen to be doing something! I was a chippie building houses for 25 yrs and I'm glad I'm now out of it - I couldn't work under the current regulations - hard hats, flouro clothing, signs, etc etc. Mind you, sitting at a desk all day in front of a computer has it's own risks........
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jan 10, 2017 20:02:57 GMT 12
And how frequently has this hazard historically actually occurred? The world is full of rules which are there because a particular hazard never showed itself until it did, resulting in horrific results and rules were then written to mitigate that ever happening again. As an example, I work under railway operating rules & regulations, and most of those individual rules & regulations are there as a result of some major incident, or disaster somewhere in the world. Sometimes, it took more than a hundred years of railway operations around the world before a particular hazard showed itself in a disaster of some sort. I'll give you one classic example from not too many years ago. Early one morning (not long after 5am) back in 2008, a group of us locomotive engineers were sitting around the table in the lunch room at Masterton after getting the morning passenger trains ready to go and we were discussing an issue which was really starting to concern us. And that was drivers working for Tranz Metro in the Wellington area texting on their mobile phones while driving electric-multiple-unit trains. We used to pass them all the time on the opposite running track, with their heads down and it was pretty obvious what they were doing. Tranz Metro were aware of the problem and had posters up in their staff amenitities warning about the dangers of texing while driving trains. In that discussion early that morning, we were concerned that sooner or later there was going to be a serious accident when one of those Metro drivers missed a caution signal followed by a danger signal, then ran up the rear of a train in front of them, and that the result would be a world-wide clamp-down on mobile phones in locomotive and train cabs. Well bugger me, only a few weeks later, there was a head-on collision in the Los Angeles area in California when a driver of a commuter train missed three danger signals in a row while texting and collided head-on with a Union Pacific freight train. The driver of the commuter train was killed, as were 24 of the passengers on his train. After the dust had settled and the investigation got to the bottom of what had occured, railway operating rules & regulations got changed world-wide, including in NZ, banning the use of mobile trains in train cabs, except in an emergency (in many countries, they were banned outright). What we had been talking about in the lunchroom actually occured, except that it wasn't in the Wellington area, but in Southern California. But that is an exmample of how hazards can be there for years, then suddenly something bad happens and all of a sudden operating proceedures all over the world get changed. Including in the aviation world. And these days, its all about identifying potential hazards and doing something about it before it actually occurs.
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 10, 2017 21:05:53 GMT 12
Once again you have taken the discussion away from the AAC case and to a completely different situation. I have no problem with good logical H and S rules based on clearly identified hazards and sensible mitigation solutions. Clearly your example (which again has nothing to do with AAC case) presents an obvious hazard (driver distracted not doing what they are paid for) and an equally obvious solution (ban cell phone use while driving). In your first paragraph you state "The world is full of rules which are there because a particular hazard never showed itself until it did..." Really..... So where do we draw the line. Getting struck by lightning is a hazard, it has occurred on numerous occasions. If you think about it walking around metal aircraft in open spaces (eg an airfield) could be risky during an approaching thunder storm. So using your logic perhaps AAC should also prohibit all outside activities when there is a possibility of lightning. (For the record I am being facetious.) I have no problem with good H and S rules based on clearly defined hazards and sensible mitigation solutions. All too often the go to solution is becoming floro vests. Over the top and not appropriate in the AAC situation.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jan 12, 2017 15:45:09 GMT 12
So how do we mitigate aviation hazards such as this: or this: Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by thomarse on Jan 12, 2017 19:31:24 GMT 12
Wally jackets for all giraffes
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jan 12, 2017 20:18:53 GMT 12
Grease the tails so planes slip through Buddha's fingers?
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jan 13, 2017 7:08:32 GMT 12
Trouble is now that AAC have gone down this path, it kind of sets a precedent. How many other AC's will feel obliged to follow suit? How soon before we all are required to don the pretty floro vests?
|
|
|
Post by flyinkiwi on Jan 13, 2017 8:03:53 GMT 12
Trouble is now that AAC have gone down this path, it kind of sets a precedent. How many other AC's will feel obliged to follow suit? How soon before we all are required to don the pretty floro vests? This (in)famous slogan springs to mind:
|
|