Unlicensed Airfield fire cover

Martin Ryan · Post by **Martin Ryan** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:45 am

I have had suggestion that if you expect more than 10 a/c to visit an unlicensed strip then you should upgrade from normal hand units near hangar to mobile unit with trained operators. This clearly would make many of our fly ins for small groups very much more expensive and difficult to arrangeand possibly strips with more than 10 a/c based!!
Anyone else had experience of this sort of 'advice'?
Thanks Martin

Rod1 · Post by **Rod1** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:12 am

I operate from a strip with 19 other aircraft and no fire cover. I cannot see why any fire cover is necessary provided the visitors understand that the field is unlicensed and has no fire cover. It is then up to them if they accept this.

Rod1

Martin Ryan · Post by **Martin Ryan** » Fri May 09, 2008 10:35 am

Rod I think it comes from personal interpretation of CAP 428, Safety Standards at Unlicensed Aerodromes ,which covers many things including fire cover. I agree it could affect many strips including where I am based with 18 a/c. Thats why I asked if others had been given similar suggestion. Martin

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Fri May 09, 2008 4:00 pm

Ultimately it's down to the strip owner. CAP 428 is only advisory and not mandatory. The same applies to things like fencing and hi-vis. Personally I feel that 'advice' as you put it such as this should be challenged. If I'm being offered advice then it's up to me what my decision is. If it's being put to me more strongly then the 'advisor' is overstepping his authority and needs to be told so.

Insurance assessor:- "Do you do risk assesments?"
Me:- "Yes of course I do. every time I cross the road I look right then left then right again to make sure it's all clear." Sadly we seem to have bred a race of lawmakers and enforcers who think that safety is bu@@er all to do with anything other than rules and documentation. It doesn't matter what you actually do, if the paperwork is right it's clearly safe!

As you're probably aware there is consultation on the way over the use of unlicensed a/d for training (which would remove the requirement for RFF anyway).

Nigel Hitchman · Post by **Nigel Hitchman** » Fri May 09, 2008 8:04 pm

well said Mike! Exactly my thoughts.

We also used to have the advice that at events such as the Rally, lots of fire extinguishers had to be provided, so that people could use them incase they spotted a fire. I understand that now this advice has been turned on its head and the advice is, dont provide any fire extinguishers, as people might hurt themselves using them, just tell people to dial 999.

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Sat May 10, 2008 10:29 pm

The trouble with accident on private strips is that not many people know where the location is. We had a serious spin in and the fire brigade attended fast but had to have a rendezvous on the main road some way away.
We also had an accident where a person broke a leg whilst chainsawing in the wood at the side of the strip. The Kent Air Ambulance was attending but couldn't find the strip easily although it was on the CAA map because his GPS was a road one. some sort of precautions need to be in place although there are times when no other person is present.

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Mon May 12, 2008 8:32 am

At the end of the day there is no evidence that a dedicated fire fighting team has saved any lives in the last 30 odd years. I'm sure they have been very helpful and doubtless very welcome at any number of incidents - but they have not saved lifes.

That is partially why the proposal to train from unlicensed strips has got as far as it has. If there were any evidence that CAP 428 and all its 'stuff' really made a difference the proposal would be dead in the water.

This is classic 'elf and safety' advice, take a very risk adverse position, insist on any precaution you conceive of and ignore any data.

Thank them for their advice and don't bother to talk to they again....?

Fires are much more likely during refuelling than any other arifield activity - that is where you need some control and hopefully something to put it out. But unless you can hit the fire almost immediately you are better off moving back and watching...

As for the fire brigade and others not knowing where the strip is - tell them - it only takes a couple ofphone calls ans is probably much better 'insurance' than a fire fighting system.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Mon May 12, 2008 12:15 pm

...couldn't find the strip easily although it was on the CAA map because his GPS was a road one

There is some spectacularly unjoined-up thinking in this respect. Last year, I phoned the police to report some possible dodgy goings-on I had encountered while traipsing over the countryside. I gave the Ordnance Survey grid reference. This was greeted by a long, long pause; then "We don't use that system." (So it was back to "Well, you go down this footpath, off the lane that runs south from the Bxyz to Chipping Buggery; after about 300 yards, turn left over a stile...." and so on (and on)!). So if you're going to notify the emergency services as to strip location, it might be worth finding out what system they actually do use!

gasax · Post by **gasax** » Mon May 12, 2008 4:34 pm

Wait until you have some dealing with HM Revenue and Customs!

Having had several conversations with a gentleman from the 'intelligence' branch of this arm of government "un-joined up" is about the kindest description I can think of. But at least I can look back on one of life's great oxymorons.

Our local ambulance service now use post codes - it's all about their GPS sets.. The Plod use - send three and four pence we're going to a dance' - much like the example above. The gentleman from the 'intelligence' brach used real time instructions on a mobile phone having failed to follow the 'send three and four pence' instructions....