Airfield Safety article in LAA magazine

tim · Post by **tim** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:56 pm

Interesting article regarding air safety and the responsibilities of airfield operators (unlicensed) since the publication of the 'NEW' CAP 642.

However speaking with the CAA they have no knowledge of a 'NEW' publication, the current CAP 642 not having been updated since 2006.

I downloaded this 'OLD' publication and despite wordsearching the entire 272 pages the word 'unlicensed' appears just twice, once to point readers to CAP 428 (Safety Standards at Unlicensed Airstrips) which I already have and once in a limp wristed statement that safety should apply at unlicensed as well as licensed airfields.

Can someone clarify what the (quote) 'bombshell' of responsibilities now thrust upon airfield owners is and in the light of this (quote) 'litigation timebomb' should I be considering closing the airfield to visitors??

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:29 pm

Removed by poster

mcfadyeanda · Post by **mcfadyeanda** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:21 pm

The whole context of CAP 642 is inappropriate to 'unlicenced grass strips'.
It's all about how to safely park the airbridge and such stuff; not relevant.

If this is not so, then why doesn't CAP 428 cross reference 642 (which was first published in 1995).

Duncan.

Ian Melville · Post by **Ian Melville** » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:34 pm

I must confess that I was quite suprised by the Beeswax article.
I always thought those pages were about grassroots low, cost aviation. Yet I was left with the impression that if we did not paint everything dayglow, put up crowd barriers and signs to cover all possible eventualities (even "may contain nuts") we would be taken to the cleaners.

This is exacty the thoughtless H&S actions that are giving accident prevention a bad name. I am not against H&S, but it must be appropriate. I also believe that people should take responsibility for there own actions, or failure to act.

They may be right about the nuts though

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 5:55 am

My take on it is that it is a warning that strip owners must at least cover minimal requirements to ensure that residents understand their responsibilities for the safety of themselves and others operating from, or attending the strip. I agree that we should all be responsible for our own actions, but that isn't the way the world works any more, whether we like it or not.
Our strip certainly contains plenty of nuts.

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:58 pm

Yes, Brian, strip owners must take responsibility for some of the operations at their strip and get pilots/owners/visitors to obey certain saferty standards, which Im sure most strip owners do now. But the tone of the article seemed to be totally over the top and inappropriate to private strips or even small airfields, much only really relevant to large commercial airfields.
Particularly those damn yellow jackets. These are totally inappropriate for anything other than a large commercial airfield with a lot of ground vehicle traffic, that is what they are really for, to ensure that people walking airside arent run over by the tanker driver, bus driver or aircraft tug, particularly in low visibility operations.

Infact I think they are more of a danger if people wear them at small airfields, as pilots then think they are marshallers or someone in authority, when often they are not. Particularly at fly-ins or busy GA airfields, the only people wearing yellow jackets should be marshallers or airfield officials.

It is a pity that some airfields seem to like them, probably because they dont understand theri purpose and think its an easy brownie point to earn from the CAA inspector who needs some boxes to tick on his form (actually wearing yellow jackets isnt even a CAA rule- so Im told by my friends in the CAA) or by some manager more interesting in thinking he is protecting his arse than real safety.

Will Greenwood · Post by **Will Greenwood** » Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:36 pm

From my view if someone calls me for PPR, they can arrive and depart at there own discretion.......simples !

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:05 pm

Classic elf 'n' safety rubbish. Take a requirement for a large commercial operation and scare people into applying it in inappropriate situations - after you have sold the 'vital' course which they must have attended.

Somewhat misleading would be my kindest interpretation. Yes strip operators and users need to be aware of obvious issues - do they need a course and a yellow tabard?

Sensible control of what happens makes a much greater contribution than this box ticking stuff.

Pete Morris