Does your club allow lone pilots?

[Braddock, VC]

I think people shouldn't post on forums before they have debated their view with at least two other people.

Any case involving negligence will, if it gets to court, use two or three sets of documents.

1. Club's risk assessment, no risk assessment and club officials have commited a criminal act. The risk assessment should be practicable and reviewed regularly. The risk assessment for solo flying could be as simple as " Flying alone - the assessment of risk is that provided the member complies withthe rules and ANOs that pertain to flying a (model) aircraft the risk is deemed to be no greater than when mulitple pilots are flying (model) aircraft. The risk assessment is that the operation of model aircraft in a solo basis is low to very low.

2. The air navigation orders as a matter of course.

3. The code of Practice from the lead body of model flying; those from the bmfa are sadly flawed as it can be seen that they are largely ignored. I'll cite two examples that I personally have witnessed. (i) One of the codes of practice says that when flying you shall not overfly other people or the pits. At the 2004or 05 Nationals a jet B-52 overflew the whole of the scale flightline and cause at least one flight to be aborted, the model was at least 1/2 a mile from the pilot (this a/c later crashed in a blaze - excuse pun - of publicity)

                                                   (ii) the code of practice (dated 2002) from the bmfa for the safe flying of indoor aircraft states categorically that there shall not be more than 2 aircraft in the air at any one time. At the 2004 or 5 nationals (my last incidentally) there were upwards of 5 or 6 fying, frequency clash being the overriding concern.

 

Any half decent defence lawyer armed with that info could discredit the bmfa's CoP, if the prosecution chose to use it, to the extreme detriment of model flying in general. 

So my advice is to go to your agm with a well prepared and documented risk assessment highlighting all the things that can go wrong, the club rules for preventing those things going wrong, the likely outcome if the things go wrong eg damage to persons or property and the scope of injuries or damage in such an event and a statement of the likelihood of these events occurring eg high, medium or low risk.

As guidance in assessing the likelihood, I will quote from a pamphlet from the Royal College of Anaesthetists whilst the text refers to anaethetic the principle is the same for all risk :- " To understand a risk you must know how serious it can be and how likely it is to happen. The risk to a member of public or to the individual concerned will depend on many factors", in modelling terms a lot will rest on ability.

 

To help assess the risk it is as well to interpret likelihood of an occurence the RCA goes on to say as "people vary in how they interpret words or numbers. The following scale is provided to help

Very common occurence 1 in 10

Common occurence 1 in 100

Uncommon occrence 1 in 1000

Rare occurence 1 in 10,000

Very rare occurence 1 in 100,000"

 

The bmfa have about 32000 members, say 1/3 fly regularly 3 or 4 flights per week say 2 million flights per annum.

Using the above table how often do we have a fatality? every year? every 2 years? more likely every 5 years so that is 1 in 10,000,000 flights by r/c aircraft so it's very rare.

How often do we have a serious injury (please put this into perspective) I've heard of two in the UK in my time in modelling so in my case it's 1 in 250,000,000 so it's very rare.

Minor injuries eg loss of a finger or cuts resulting in hospital treatment say 200 a year so that equates to 1 in 100,000 this also is very rare.

First aid occurence finger cuts, fuel in eye that kind of thing say 1000 a year so that equals 1 in 2000 this risk is lower than uncommon."

All these figures are guestimates on my behalf, but in the overall scheme of things they are probably reasonably accurate some of the time and spot on other times but could be way off on other occasions. But for all that most H&S legislation is aimed at people in work not in their leisure and theover-riding issue for officials is that they have a duty of care to both their members and the general public - from a health and safety viewpoint. There is not a lot of case history for the judge to fall back on and most do not enjoy creating precedent. I'd say as a guess and it's what I practice as a non elected official in my club, fulfil your duty of care and you should be beyond reproach. The only caveat I'd put in is if there are a lot of near misses you have to ask why?

 

[Robin Coombs]

Here in South Africa, well at my club, we do not recomend flying alone. Why, it's simply a case of personal protection. The crime rate is so bad that you will get mugged and robbed, or worse.

Also, I like to chat to other members and get tips and hints. It,s more social than anything else. It's also nice to hear someone elses opinion of your latest manouvre. Helps to improve.

What's the good of perfecting an aerobatic manouvre if there is no one around to see it?

 

Cheers

Robin

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

While much of what John says is sound advice I am afraid on some key issues I think he is wrong. Failure to complete a risk assessment is not a criminal offence. People seem to misunderstand the fundemental nature of UK H&S law, and statements like this, which confuse recommended practice and legislative responsibility, are a classical example.

 

As a senior professional engineer and the Director of a large Research Institute I have day to day experience with H&S law. In the UK the law does not specify any actions which have to be taken in respect of H&S. Instead it does the following;

1. it identifies everyone, absolutely everyone, in an organisation as having responsibility for H&S.

2. It identifies managers as having a "duty of care".

3. It states that such managers discharge their duty of care by taking "reasonable measures" to ensure safe operation.

 

It does not specify what those reasonable measures are.

 

In practice this is dealt with by a collection of professional bodies, trade associations etc. They develop guidelines which lay out what is considered "best pratice". The theory is that if you comply with these guidelines then you have safe and effective defence in law that you have taken "reasonable measures".

 

So for someone like me I have to ensure safety training is available, proper records are kept, protective equipment, where needed, is available and people are encouraged to use it. But, if an employee chooses not to use the safety equipment then I am "in the clear" I have complied with best practice and I have taken reasonable measures.

 

For us the body we would have recourse to in terms of defining best practice guidelines would be the BMFA. If a club put the BMFA guidelines into practice then it is extremely unlikely it would be liable - it will be seen to have taken reasonable precautions. The BMFA does not recemmend unaccompanied flying, so neother does the club. But the BMFA does not ban solo flying, and so neither does the club have to. It's in the same situation as a when an employee chooses not to use safety equipment provided - it has discharged any duty of care.

 

Having said that I doubt if in fact a court would rule that the officiers of a private society like a model flying club have a duty of care to the membership. It would be far more likely to rule that all club members share an equal duty of care to take reasonable precautions. Exceptions to this would be in circumstances under which a club employs someone. Say the club pays a person to cut the grass using the club's mower. Then the officers would indeed have a duty of care to ensure this person was properly trained, that the mower was well maintained and had all the recommended safety gaurds etc. But this would not, in my opinion, apply to a member.

 

Risk Assessments? Well they are just one method by which you can establish that you have discharged a duty of care. Useful, but as the evidence could be supplied via alternative means, their absence is not in and of itself a criminal offence. The key question would be "Does recommended best practice, as laid out by the BMFA, advise that Risk Assessments be undertaken?" If so, and they weren't, then was the alternative practice in place at least equally robust?

 

I feel there is nothing in the H&S law to prevent solo flying. John is right ,a completed risk assessment would be helpful and if coupled to the club's view being stated that solo flying was not recommended (in line with BMFA guidelines) then I stick with my view - the club officials have discharged their duty of care (in as far as it exists) and are not liable.

 

BEB

 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 15/12/2009 11:22:36

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Totally agree with you Eric, as I say I think the courts would as well. That's why I say I do not believe that club officers have a "duty of care" to members in a private club - but even if they did, simple following of the BMFA guidelines would discharge it anyway.

 

Your point on the dangers of model building have also occurred to me. I'd lay a small wager that says there are many more accidents in the workshop than at the flying field!

 

BEB

[Myron Beaumont]

Well said Eric & B E Brother

Cor Blimey !

Dare I switch on my electric kettle on my own ?

Isn't it (everything) getting ridiculous

Thank God I've enjoyed so many years of flying on my own since 1950 actually -my own designs mostly without a "suit" telling me how to enjoy my lifetime hobby . As I have said before ,I played guitar & piano for years as a living . Don't you think that I've always looked after my fingers ????

Dare I use a sharp blade to cut my balsa anymore ?

G-UMPY 2 (do you wonder why /)

At one time a few years back I worked on an oil rig . There was a serious fire because a flap controlling the air intakes to the very big diesel engines stuck shut on one engine  so raw fuel was going up the exhaust  There were 4 engines in all running for power supply at the time- 6500 HP each (the ones used in French trains at the time SNACME's ) The whole roof was literally red hot & the flames were seen from shore as the fuel burnt on meeting air . We found the problem ,opened up the air intake on the 6 cylinders starved of it  & saved the rig .(Very scary actually !)

Now then getting back to the point ,I doubt a suit could have done what us engineers did keeping our cool..

Especially a new young graduate straight from "uni" that thinks he knows everything & got himself a job with the H&S

[Myron Beaumont]

PS

All this talk about rules & regulations misses out one factor ----Competence! Learnt by making mistakes I know in some cases

When I bought my first sailing boat & knew very little -Guess what I read about what NOT to do . I'm still alive thanks to learning from others experience when starting on a new venture . Aeromodelling is not life threatening (not in my case anyway -touch wood)

[Braddock, VC]

BEB I'm not wrong, recent case law with hunt saboteurs being assaulted by shoot or hunt followers found in the favour of the saboteurs as effectively the hunt/shoot  was an organisation behaving illegally as it had no risk assessments pertaining to the case in question and where confrontations are foreseeable. The employees were the beaters who were given lunch and paid "expenses". The organisation didn't have a safety policy either. There was quite a furore in the sporting press at the time, a couple of years ago at most (I think).

I won't try to teach you your own business but if I were your safety adviser I would certainly have written to you outlining my concerns if you consider that after training an employee and providing him with everything ppe you are in the clear if he has an accident whilst he refuses to wear ppe. If he does not use ppe then my advice to you would be that you must take disciplinary action either until he does (wear ppe) or sack him or move him to a job where it's not required. I'm assuming that the ppe has been selected by someone competent and with consultation with the users, of course.

I'll make the point that I did at the beginning and end of my effusion respectively viz a case of negligence if it gets to court and at the end most health and safety law is directed at employers to protect those who may be affected by their activities (Health and Safety at Work etc Act which was the original enabling act that allowed civil servants to add laws at ministerial discretion).

With regard to elected club officials, there are laws giving them responsibilities and holding them responsible for financial activities, it's one reason why I won't hold myself up for election as a club official, I don't understand that law other than it refers to elected officials. If it came to the crunch and our membership wanted to elect those who do the admin and backstage work I'd refuse nomination. We have two "officials" very recently joined by a Safety Adviser who was appointed by the two of us. All our decisions are taken at club meetings either at clubnights or at the flying field where I support 100% the right of the members to fly on their own.

Have a look at our website www.bloobirds.co.uk in the history section, it spells it out there.

BTW anyone in SE Kent bloobirds 2010 subs £40 plus bmfa for unlimited (solo) flying hours, tarmac roads right up to the pits plus a smashing indoor flying site with monthly raffles to keep them ticking over.

[Braddock, VC]

BTW as a rider to my stuff above, common sense is the phrase associated with H&S, unfortunately it's not often in evidence sometimes being rarer than credibility in H&S legislation.

Incidentally there are some lovely pamphlets doing the rounds from some .gov agency, "Health and Safety Myths" which are well worth a read.

[Erfolg]

From the dialogue to date, it would seem.

 

a) There are no compelling grounds to prevent people from flying by yourself. eg insurance/BMFA

b) Any restrictions are almost certainly imposed by a club.

 

It appears that any suggestion to impose such procedures by a club member or even a person holding some form of club office, could quite usefully challenged by the members. The outcome of this process in the vast majority of cases would result in qualified approval of lone flying.

 

I am not sure that their is any need for further debate, I think the collective knowledge and opinion, indicate the way forward,

 

Mr Elder

 

I think you are mistaken if you believe that supplying protective equipment is sufficient. If I understand you correctly.

 

To be compliant, I would expect the organisation to have Method Statements, which incorporated the use of the equipment and additionally processes that ensured compliance with those method statements.

 

Yet we are not in a workplace environment, interesting none the less.

 

 

Regards

 

Erfolg

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Sorry John, the plain fact is there is no criminal offence known as "failure to possess a risk assessment". The huntsmen you refer to will have been found guilty of failing in respect of fullfilling their duty of care to the beaters. The risk assessment is merely one mechanism by which they could have demonstrated that they had exercised a duty of care that's all. So I stand by my statement - failure to have a risk assessment is not in and of itself a criminal offence.

 

My explanation on liability was a simplification for brievity in an already lengthy post. I would indeed pursue through disciplinary action those who fail to use protective equipment effectively. But not because of any H&S liability on my part, instead for the sake of the example they set others. My point was that within the law I'm not obliged to act further.

 

In twenty-five years in management I have had many safety officers in various contexts - none have ever criticized or even questioned my safety management policies and indeed they are in-line with most industrial practice. I have also never had a major accident in a department run by myself. During this period I have obviously also faced numerous inspections and informal visits by HSE inspectors and/or Factory Inspectors - both planned and spot visits. None of these have been anything other than perfectly satisfied with H&S proceedures in my area of responsibility.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 15/12/2009 21:41:20

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Erfolg,

 

yes I agree you would need additional material, but as I said in the response to John I was being brief(!) I used the catch all "training is provided" to include such details.

 

My real point is that the law requires that everyone has the responsibility for H&S - its not specifically the responsibility of management,  the safety officer or the club officials in our case! The specific responsibilities of the manager relate to the duty of care - of providing the mechanism and means for safe operation. Legally s/he is not responsible for other people's individual actions if they fail to use the safety codes and equipment provided. This is the avenue under which I claim that club officials - once they have implemented BMFA "best practice" - have no responsibility for the actions of lone flyers if they choose to ignore advised safety proceedures.

 

Other than that point - where perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear, for which I apologise - I totally agree with your analysis Erfolg. I think any ban on lone flying within a club could be reasonably challenged. Of course if the majority vote for it - well that's it. But I do not believe the "committee is liable" argument stacks up.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 15/12/2009 21:57:46

[Bruce Richards]

David, I do not see how this has anything to do with a club where the members vote on the club rules and vote in the safety officer each year.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

A while ago I made a post asking if we couldn't all as fellow modellers treat each other with a little respect - calling for an end to the "safety nazi" style taunts. You have obviously decided to ignore that David. You continue your taunts and persaonal attacks on anyone who disagrees with your point of view. Sad really.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that lots of people who do a great job as club safety officers and give up a lot of their time on a voluntary basis to help others - particularly those new to the sport - my club's SO for one (and, no its not me before you ask) -  might feel  very hurt and offended by that sort of comment?

 

 

BEB 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 16/12/2009 10:23:44

[BEAR WOOD]

Thank you Mr Turner have added it to my bookmarks we got to fight against the Aunty knows best brigade wherever we can!

[ken anderson.]

we vote half a dozen safety officer's each agm-they volunteer to assist in the 'safe' operation of our radio model aircraft at our shared site(council land)..and as such member's are informed that no abuse of these 6 member's will be tolerated....me think's this here thread is going to end in tear's...........

 

       ken anderson....

 

 

[Tim Mackey]

No...it will simply be closed off.