£50,000 fine for H&S breach

[Iain_S]

(snip)

The god HSE recently banned us from climbing up 10' or so to check the top cowling latches on our helicopters, even though in the past there were a number of occasions when these had been found open. Guess what, the HSE laws don't apply once we get airborne, so HSE doesn't care if we crash and burn taking 19 passengers with us, so long as we didn't climb up 10' before taking off. Now that is sensible!

 

Is it not your company's safety offcer (or whatever his title is) who banned you, not the HSE? If there is no other way of checking the cowling hatches, I'd suggest his/her Risk Assessment is seriously flawed!

 

Iain

[navmanl200]

If I engage a professional handyman to come round and fix my guttering and he uses a ladder as opposed to scaffolding to do it am I label in anyway for allowing onto my land to do this should he fall off? Serious question as i have just asked the village builder who does all these odd jobs to come round to do this and some pointing.

If you engage the services of a professional handyman then he should come with PLI (Public liability insurance) and by the very nature of the job he is carrying out, he will have (or should have) carried out a risk assessment for the job in hand and worked out whether ladders are adequate or whether he is going to hire scaffolding and add another £400-500 to the job (which i think you may have 'baulked' at) i know i would have ! He (the handyman) is responsible for the safety of himself and ANYONE who enters the area where he is working, that's why you carry out a risk assessment, to make sure you can carry out the job in a safe manner. the difference between the dry dock & your house is that the drydock is a business premises and your house is private property, the drydock can refuse to let you enter their premises if they deem something on your boat or about you to be 'dangerous' after all, it is their 'private property' (that they let you and me 'joe public' onto) and by the nature of that they are then responsible as BUSINESS OWNERS and according to H&S law ANYONE who enters their business's health and safety. So no need to worry about your DIY man, he will be fine, he isn't going to sue the pants off YOU if he falls off his ladders.

 

Thankyou to Ange & luctor et emergo and anyone else I have missed that for understanding my side of the argument, i just really hope that IF Nick Norman has a brother or sister nothing like this EVER happens to them, because i would love to see him come on here and say "my brother has just fallen off his boat into a dry dock, smashed his skull and died, what an absoloutly stupid bugger" I don't think it would go like that somehow, in fact i don't think he would even have the gall to come on here and say something, as he would be too busy trying to get the law changed (oh no silly me he wouldn't because he doesn't think the law is there for the good of people it's just something we have to 'put up with') I am off now to go and give Richards widow a big hug, because i care about people and what happens to them. And Nick I would be there if you needed a 'man hug' if anything like this were to happen to your family, which i sincerely hope it doesn't.

 

Thanks for the chat. Navman

[nicknorman]

Nick- are you standing by this statement? It implies that no alternative process has been put in place. Our company use your aircraft regularly, and this is a shocking implication. Particularly given yesterday's report on the recent BA incident.

Yes, I am standing by the statement because its true. I didn't say an alternative process hadn't been put in place. It has. Firstly the cowlings are opened less frequently, only as required by the rules and not on every return to base, secondly the engineers have a work card in the Techlog that gets a second signature when the cowling closure had been independently checked. Sounds good but of course the BA flight had its cowls independently inspected (allegedly) and yet they were both left open. Independent,or duplicate inspections are a good thing but not as infallible as one might initially think because human factors come into play. Knowing that someone else will be checking your safety critical work might make you less conscientious under stress. And checking your colleagues

work, whom you know well and trust, is not REALLY necessary when you're really busy?

 

So thanks to the HSE god I would say we are overall less safe as a consequence. Call me old fashioned but I would put my passengers' safety ahead of my own, and anyway I would rather fall 10 feet due to my own carelessness than 3000' due to someone else's.

 

 

Is it not your company's safety offcer (or whatever his title is) who banned you, not the HSE? If there is no other way of checking the cowling hatches, I'd suggest his/her Risk Assessment is seriously flawed!

 

Iain

As I suggested earlier, HSE bods and Flight Safety are different entities. This banning came from the HSE bods despite some opposition from Flight Safety. I am not joking when I say HSE has no jurisdiction, and doesn't care what happens once we are airborne.

 

By the way, the other operators capitulated to this a while ago. But ultimately there is no fighting the HSE god even when its stupid.

 

Navman, we are not talking about compassion, I can give you that if you wish but since I know neither you not the gentleman in question it could be considered patronising. There is no doubt it was a very sad event, but the point is accidents do happen. These days the first reaction is that it must be someone else's fault and who can we sue? Rather than it was just bad luck and/or carelessness.

Edited June 1, 2013 by nicknorman

[madcat]

Without wishing to comment on the accident I feel that I must point out that I used the dry dock on a couple of occasions prior to the accident . On both occasions a gangplank with a handrail was secured to give me safe access to the boat.

On the subject of people doing daft stuff and coming to grief all I can say is that we take all take risks and should be responsible for our own actions and the consequences of our actions.

[smileypete]

I drive an outrageously fast Hayabusu motorbike with a top speed just under 200mph, and gets to 150 in under 10 seconds. Its potentially lethal but designed and sold in the UK. If I kill myself on it (which is quite possible, the way I drive!) in my opinion that would be entirely my fault, not the manufacturer's nor the seller's. But extrapolating the dry dock scenario, you would have it that it would be someone else's fault for allowing me to risk my own life. That is where the whole concept inevitably fails.

Trouble with doing it on public roads that it may cause risk or distress to other people, not to mention unnecessary costs to the state and taxpayer.

 

In the case of the dock accident the business has a reasonable duty of care to ensure the safety of the hirer, which they demonstrably failed to do.

 

I just hope the court ensures the directors at fault cannot avoid the fine by winding up the business, and bans them from operating such a business.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

Edited June 2, 2013 by smileypete

[luctor et emergo]

Me finks Norman is just winding you all up. Nobody really drives (sic) a Hayabusa without wearing protective clothing. Unless they are either:

1. Stupid

2. Insane

3. Stupidly Insane

 

I'll join back in when the argument gets advanced. It's a bit repetetive now.

[nicknorman]

Trouble with doing it on public roads that it may cause risk or distress to other people, not to mention unnecessary costs to the state and taxpayer.

 

In the case of the dock accident the business has a reasonable duty of care to ensure the safety of the hirer, which they demonstrably failed to do.

 

I just hope the court ensures the directors at fault cannot avoid the fine by winding up the business, and bans them from operating such a business.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

I find that if I go fast enough they don't have time to be distressed. As to potential cost you could level the same accusation against smokers, those who drink too much, walk in the mountains or are too fat and unexcercised.

 

I can go along with the hirer having some duty of care, but in this case I see the prime responsibility lying with the deceased.

 

Me finks Norman is just winding you all up. Nobody really drives (sic) a Hayabusa without wearing protective clothing. Unless they are either:

1. Stupid

2. Insane

3. Stupidly Insane

I'll join back in when the argument gets advanced. It's a bit repetetive now.

Naughty Lucky putting words into my mouth. You asked if I wore leathers. I don't. I didn't say that I don't wear protective clothing. Edited June 2, 2013 by nicknorman

[luctor et emergo]

I find that if I go fast enough they don't have time to be distressed. As to potential cost you could level the same accusation against smokers, those who drink too much, walk in the mountains or are too fat and unexcercised.

 

I can go along with the hirer having some duty of care, but in this case I see the prime responsibility lying with the deceased.

 

Naughty Lucky putting words into my mouth. You asked if I wore leathers. I don't. I didn't say that I don't wear protective clothing.

In a (very) high speed off, leathers are the only real option to stand a chance of walking away with all your skin and flesh. If the reinforced jeans etc were up to the job, don't you think racers would wear it? I can't see The Doctor passing up the chance to race in a pair of Levi's.

 

Mind you, that is pretty academic in the majority of (high speed) road crashes, as your clothes only protect against abrasion really. You are more likely to hit a stationary object, which even leathers don't protect you against, and which does the terminal damage.

[nicknorman]

In a (very) high speed off, leathers are the only real option to stand a chance of walking away with all your skin and flesh. If the reinforced jeans etc were up to the job, don't you think racers would wear it? I can't see The Doctor passing up the chance to race in a pair of Levi's.

Mind you, that is pretty academic in the majority of (high speed) road crashes, as your clothes only protect against abrasion really. You are more likely to hit a stationary object, which even leathers don't protect you against, and which does the terminal damage.

Racers have another consideration which is aerodynamics. Proper racing leathers are snug fitting and hence streamlined. And very expensive. Cheap leathers get scraped off in no time. Anyway, its better not to all off in the first place.

[luctor et emergo]

Racers have another consideration which is aerodynamics. Proper racing leathers are snug fitting and hence streamlined. And very expensive. Cheap leathers get scraped off in no time. Anyway, its better not to all off in the first place.

True. But I'm sure they can make protective jeans tight fitting (ohh matron.. ) And streamlined. You just can't beat thick skin for protection.

[smileypete]

I find that if I go fast enough they don't have time to be distressed. As to potential cost you could level the same accusation against smokers, those who drink too much, walk in the mountains or are too fat and unexcercised.

 

I was thinking of people out for the day with their small kids who might find the sight of a selfish wrinkly biker mangled around a telegraph pole and bits of ex-expensive bike all over the place, a bit distressing.

 

As to the costs there's also the involvement of the police to close roads, investigate, plus some poor unfortunate may have to clean up the mess.

 

I can go along with the hirer having some duty of care, but in this case I see the prime responsibility lying with the deceased.

 

If the dock hirer has failed to have a reasonable duty of care then they've left themselves wide open, and in this case there is no exemplary safety record to mitigate, quite the opposite in fact.

 

A speculative argument that the hirer wouldn't have used the proper gangplank and handrail anyway *if* one had been provided, is not going to hold water in a court of law.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

Edited June 2, 2013 by smileypete

[DHutch]

I think the topic in hand, and issues like it, is that anyone is going to find themselves in a conflict of interests.

 

Obviously its a great shame that there was a lose of life while someone was working on their boat, and for the family and friends, it must be terrible, and it certainly right that should an incident like that or any other happen it be taken seriously and an investigation launched into what can be done to reduce the chance of that happening again, and it does appear that in this case that was done prior to this event and not fully acted on, which I suspect was looked on unfavourably on the occurrence of a fall into the dock.

However on the flip side the need to maintain boats, on drydock and hard standings will remain, and while there is scope for continuing improvement of practice, the restriction on allowing people to work on there own or others boats is not a good thing. Be that through restrictions the prevent it, or the economics of insurance premiums preventing it. And from a totally selfish view point as someone who has used worsley exclusively every four years from when our boat was launched there in 1991 I am watching the situation very closely as if the situation remains as it does that you cannot work on a boat at Worsley we will for the first time two decades be forced to look elsewhere to dock, already knowing that the majority of docks moved away from allow DIY work years ago, which combined with its location, good access, and ability to take heavier boats, was the main draw to Worsley.

 

We had the same experience as Journeyman posted earlier in the thread that the planks turned from a single scaffolding board, into youngmans boards, which then developed handrails and the requirement to be tied down. Im quite happy for that to go on, assuming it does not prevent you working, and in fact comment while we where there that even with the side rails fitted there where no kick boards fitted.

 

I have been in and out of the dock from an early age and was always lectured greatly by my grandfather and parents as to the risks. We used to tie our own planks down, and a taught rope hand rail, took care, and set up such that unnecessary trips on/off the boat where reduced. Paint/tools being moved onto the hard, along with tea making equipment and the like.

Ive also worked on narrowboat Spey on Worsley, they where on there for several months, often with a large team of people working on the boat, but you cannot just pay some £X/ft/side to replace the side of a woodern boat, not least, if you consider working on the boat to be one of the attractions to owning and operating it, as we do ourselves with emilyanne. I wouldnt WANT to pay some to paint her, I enjoy doing it, doing it well, and looking over the boat closely myself.

 

 

 

Daniel

[bizzard]

And don't forget that the majority of inland boat owners are a bunch of aged doddering old imbeciles, that think the aging process doesn't apply to them, and that they still have the agility, deftness and sharp eyesight of a teenager. and of course they haven't and most totter about half blind, half deaf on very wonky legs. Some say I might be one of these.

 

Of course there's nothing wrong with trying to make yourself appear young, beautiful and bursting with virility and youngness like wearing contact lenses, wigs, abdominal supports, the latest trendy attire and Addidas trainers ect, as long as you realize your aging shortcomings and are extra careful how and where you tread like acting about crossing lock beams with no handrails attached which is usually only performed by elderly blokes with a female audience. Older folk tend to collect a lot more dog poo on their shoes too..

Edited June 2, 2013 by bizzard

[Jerra]

Is it not your company's safety offcer (or whatever his title is) who banned you, not the HSE? If there is no other way of checking the cowling hatches, I'd suggest his/her Risk Assessment is seriously flawed!

 

Iain

I totally agree. Much H & S "madness" has nothing to do with HSE it is to do with people wrongly interpreting what they are supposed to be doing or looking for an easy way of stopping some thing and not being blamed.

 

I am not saying that is the case with the helicopter but in many of the H & S silly stories we here it is, also sometimes a miss placed fear of the regulations.

[madcat]

Smiley Pete I used the dock before the accident on two occasions and all possible care was taken in respect of safe access as I described in my previous post.

I do not wish to see the owners of the dock put out of business and taken to the cleaners. Sad though it is I think the deceased was the architect of his own misfortune . It is time that people took responsibility for the own actions instead of expecting somebody else to think for them.

[nicknorman]

Too true madcat, though its a pity only you and I think like that. Others expect to be looked after by "them"

[John Holden]

The point of contention here seems to be the owner of premises not being responsible for the safety of those using it who are not directly in his employ.

 

If that were to be the case, the owner having no responsibility for those not directly in his employ, expect a sudden increase in the numbers of people engaged in dangerous (or unsafe) occupations becoming self employed.

[john4647]

I was told, some weeks ago, by the owners of the dry dock, that they are no longer offering a 'diy' service at Worsley.

The dock is now only open for employees to work on boats, not owners.

[Ian Mac]

Well written DHutch, SmileyPete seems to have missed the title of this thread and/or not read its earlier parts - the case has been hear in court and a fine of £50K has been imposed on the director of the Drydock company. What is now outstanding is the civil case for damages, which will be long and brutal if I know how insurance companies operate, because it is in there interest to keep the claim costs down. As the poor guy died rather than suffering lifetime injuries they will pay the minimum amount possible, it will take years to settle, as the other side will be on no fee support from their solicitor, the fees will normally be picked up by the insurance, unless they made the claim after the recent change in legal support, and distribution of costs.

The problem now for all of us is because of this incident and other recent accidents in drydocks, the number of good dry docks available for DIY has reduced almost to zero. There is a new insurance limit of two people working, which now applies to a lot of drydocks, which I believe is a silly limit for the reason which DHutch has explained.

I am stlll of the opinion that had this HSE case been fought in the courts rather the the cheap option being taken, that there was every chance that the Drydock Co would have won, but do remember that there is no limit to the fine that can be imposed, and that £50K is not even a smack on the wrist level when we consider similar HSE cases - Network rail were fined several million for there last fatal accident, and the directors threatened with jail terms. see the HSE website

As to were I saw the draft statement it was in the witnesses hands.

[Guest]

Smiley Pete I used the dock before the accident on two occasions and all possible care was taken in respect of safe access as I described in my previous post.

I do not wish to see the owners of the dock put out of business and taken to the cleaners. Sad though it is I think the deceased was the architect of his own misfortune . It is time that people took responsibility for the own actions instead of expecting somebody else to think for them.

In an ideal world, yes. If people took responsibility for themselves (including others) there would be no need for rules, laws etc in relation to safety and other aspects of life, and the world would be a better place. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen, hence we need rules/laws in place to guide the "irresponsible."

Edited June 4, 2013 by Guest

[smileypete]

Smiley Pete I used the dock before the accident on two occasions and all possible care was taken in respect of safe access as I described in my previous post.

I do not wish to see the owners of the dock put out of business and taken to the cleaners. Sad though it is I think the deceased was the architect of his own misfortune . It is time that people took responsibility for the own actions instead of expecting somebody else to think for them.

 

Seemed to me there was a serious accident some years ago and things improved for a while afterward but lapsed again by the time of the accident.

 

Sorry I didn't know the court case has already happened, I don't usually have time to read these sort of threads, and only got involved as I thought Nick was being more than a tad insensitive to a close friend of the deceased.

 

I think in this case it was the dock owner who expected everybody else to think for them. The thinking they needed to do for themselves, and didn't do, was to have a reasonable duty of care towards hirers.

 

cheers, Pete.

~smpt~

[larkshall]

A gang plank with one or two handrails would also need to be heavy and held firmly at either end, for if a person stumbles onto one of the railings the whole plank could tip over with them on it.

Safer to have a secured at the top ladder down into the dock and another ladder in the dock also secured at the top up to the boat.

Lets face it its a bit risky for 60 plus year olds 'like myself' to be doddering around on wonky planks with an eight foot plus drop beneath.

I dunno though, don't think pierpoint let any of his victims drop that distance, mind his trapdoors, weren't usually wonky, age no barrier I believe?

[Rufford]

If I engage a professional handyman to come round and fix my guttering and he uses a ladder as opposed to scaffolding to do it am I label in anyway for allowing onto my land to do this should he fall off? Serious question as i have just asked the village builder who does all these odd jobs to come round to do this and some pointing.

 

 

Not entirely sure, but if you were a company and you had asked a chap to clean your gutters and he uses ladders and falls, then yes you would be liable for not ensuring he was complying with the working at height regs. (There is a recent HSE case on it somewhere)

 

He could then of course sue you in a civil court for what is practically his own mistake.

 

Not sure if this applies to the general public.

[Bettie Boo]

OMG what a disturbing thread!!!

 

I really can't believe that some members of this forum have taken 7 pages of utter useless arguing over this tragic death, whose fault it was and who should take responsibility for it. I would suggest that we all should feel sadden by it and would hope that this man's demise would at the very least teach/enlighten other's to the dangers we all need to be aware of (whether from a personal or supplier stand point) don't let his passing be a waste.

 

Gazza way back on pg 4 or 5 was pretty close in quoting the HSE directive. Whether you agree with it or not, it is English Law. Therefore if you consider, or would like to be considered as a "law abiding citizen" there isn't really any choice unless the law changes. If you don't agree with a law, I do believe you have a right to lobby your local congressman or local member of parliament to have the law changed. (good luck with that).

 

Do I think H&S at times has gone to the extreme? The following statement found on a package of peanuts should answer that. "Caution the contents of this package may contain Nuts or their bi-products"

 

Safety is everyone's responsibility. Individuals, employers, shop keepers, hire companies, public service providers etc etc

 

Just my two pence worth

 

B~

[matty40s]

BettieBoo, if you keep digging up old threads on here you will never get out there on a boat.