ASMS Principal Andrew Shelley recently published the paper "A Model of Human Harm from a Falling Unmanned Aircraft: Implications for UAS Regulation", published in the International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace.
In this paper Andrew quantifies the human harm, in the form of fatalities and skull fractures, which could occur as a result of an unmanned aircraft falling from a height. The analysis is used to establish the maximum height at which an unmanned aircraft can be flown over people to achieve a level of safety consistent with the rate of ground fatalities from General Aviation. The maximum height is dependent on the aircraft mass and the population density of people on the ground below.
The results are used to inform a critical evaluation of recent recommendations from the FAA-chartered “Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration Task Force (RTF) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)” and the “Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee”. The recommendations from these committees derive from assumptions that do not reflect the risks of flying over groups of people, and particularly over crowds.
The New Zealand CAA’s rules allowing flight over people who have granted consent are also considered, and this paper recommends that maximum height limits should be specified even when consent has been granted. The New Zealand CAA, in some instances, grant approvals to fly over people without consent, and parachutes are one factor considered in granting such an approval. Andrew analyses the ability of parachutes to effectively reduce the speed of descent, and show that for lighter aircraft a parachute may allow operation over relatively dispersed groups of people.
A copy of the full paper may be downloaded from: http://dx.doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1120.
Does your SMS provider promise you a system that primarily addresses Flight Safety, or is focussed primarily on your flying operations? Is your SMS provider focussed solely on Civil Aviation requirements and paying little attention to workplace health and safety regulation?
If you answered yes to either of these questions then you could be at significant risk of failing to meet your obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The Health and Safety at Work Act makes it clear that the business has a primary duty of care to ensure that no hazard in the workplace harms any person, worker or otherwise. You must assess all of your hazards, evaluating the likelihood and consequence of harm occuring, and then work through a structured process to ensure that all hazards are appropriately controlled.
After years of detailed regulation by the CAA, most flight-related risks are adequately controlled. But what about hangar risks, electrical safety, and working from heights? And do you have a culture that encourages effective worker participation and active safety reporting? Talk to us today.
So you've got a "drone", but what laws apply when you fly? This article summarises some of the key provisions of the Civil Aviation Rules, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and the Privacy Act 1993.
Civil Aviation Rules
The Civil Aviation Rules Part 101 always applies unless you have received a specific exemption from CAA. Some of the key aspects of these rules are:
- You must have knowledge of the airspace you are flying in and the restrictions associated with that;
- You must always have permission to fly over people or property;
- You must not fly more than 400ft above ground level, or beyond unaided visual line of sight;
- If you are within 4km of an aerodrome then you must either:
- Hold a pilot certificate issued by an approved organisation (that’s us!) and have the agreement of the aerodrome operator (for uncontrolled aerodromes) or air traffic control (for a controlled aerodrome); or
ASMS is pleased to announce that Heather Andrews has been appointed as an approved external auditor for the ACC Workplace Safety Management Practices (WSMP) programme.
The WSMP programme recognises medium to large businesses (more than 10 employees) that have implemented effective health and safety systems and practices in their workplaces. Qualifying employers can obtain discounts of up to 20% on their ACC work cover levies. WSMP accreditation provides objective evidence of your health and safety practices.
Heather can be contracted to conduct the audit required by the WSMP programme, or alternatively can help your business develop its systems to achieve the highest level of recognition under the programme.
Please contact Heather by email or by phone on (021) 061 4655.
 Table of suggested allowable senior person combinations. See page 6 of the ASMS submission for details. On 8 May 2015 the CAA issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making NPRM 15-02 Part 100 Safety Management together with draft advisory circular AC100-1 Safety Management. The proposed new Rule Part 100 provides a basic outline of the requirements for a Safety Management System (SMS), with most of the detail provided in the supporting advisory circular. Consequential changes to most certification rules would see almost all certificated operators required to implement an SMS within three years.
Aviation Safety Management Systems Ltd (ASMS) supports the proposed rule. Our submission covers a range of topics intended to contribute to both improvement of the proposed rule and advisory circular, and contribute to a better understanding of the role of SMS.
There is some confusion over the extent to which employment health and safety legislation addresses risks to the safety of persons other than employees (i.e. passengers, visitors, and members of the public). Our submission demonstrates that New Zealand employment health and safety legislation includes these risks, and employers have been prosecuted for not meeting their obligations to ensure the safety of people who are not employees.
We briefly discuss SMS in other (non-aviation) sectors, including the regulations applying to Adventure Activities, and the ACC Workplace Safety Management Practices (WSMP) programme. While WSMP accreditation could not be a replacement for CAA’s own surveillance, it could be used as a significant risk indicator within CAA’s risk-based regulation framework, providing a positive indicator of reduced risk.
An important implementation issue is the question of who should hold the role of Safety Manager). We examine this question for 6 operators that we are associated with, focussing on what senior personnel are best placed to perform the role and noting that quality assurance is included within the Safety Manager role. We recommend that the position of senior person responsible for quality assurance is reinstated, and that the draft advisory circular be revised to indicate how the various roles of Chief Executive, Operations Manager, Safety Manager, Occurrence Investigation, and Quality Assurance can (and cannot) be combined.
We also provide a number of comments on the draft advisory circular. We note that setting safety goals is often extremely difficult, and recommend providing additional guidance on this point. We also comment on the interface with other management systems and suggest that fatigue risk management is no different to managing the risk of alcohol and drugs, and neither these areas nor health and safety generally should be seen as separate from SMS. Viewing each of these areas as separate creates a risk of fragmentation of systems and reduced effectiveness in addressing the relevant hazards.
A farm worker was killed when the Quad Bike he was driving overturned and rolled into a pond on Sunday 12 October 2014. This brings the number of Quad Bike-related deaths this year to seven. Four people were killed in 2013, and on average five are killed every year. This news article lists each of the deaths in the last 24 months.
People using Quad Bikes should assess whether a Quad Bike really is the best vehicle for the job, and review the safety of all areas where the Quad Bike might be used. Employers should identify hazardous areas and clearly communicate to employees and contractors where it is safe to use Quad Bikes and where it is not. "No go" areas should be clearly identified. Employers should also ensure that riders are competent and bikes are not overloaded. Single-person bikes should not be used to transport passengers.
For further information, contact us or download the Worksafe Guidelines for the safe use of Quad Bikes.
Business New Zealand has today released a new health & safety guideline for small and medium sized enterprises. Sponsored by WorkSafe and the New Zealand Institute of Directors, the guide provides a high level overview of responsibilities and some good ideas for getting started. The guideline, Health & Safety Leadership: A guide for small to medium business owners and company directors, can be downloaded here.
In our view, while the guide might serve to provide motivation to get something done, there's no better place to start than the ACC Workplace Safety Discount (WSD) scheme. The WSD scheme provides a 10% discount on ACC work cover levies for small businesses with 10 or less employees.
The application forms on the WSD Information Page detail the information required by ACC. Once you have those documents and processes in place then you will have the basis of a working health & safety system. The guides on the WSD Information Page provide further information on how to meet the requirements of the scheme (such as hazard identification). You can complete these yourself, or contact us to let us know how we can help.
ASMS is pleased to announce that it has completed an SMS Gap Analysis for an aviation operator certificated under Part 119 of New Zealand's Civil Aviation Rules.
The purpose of a Gap Analysis is to identify the "gaps" between an ideal standard and actual performance. As such, the gap analysis identifies the areas where improvement is required to meet the standard.
ASMS' methodology assesses an organisation's exposition and performance against four standards:
- AS/NZS 4801:2001 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
- AC00-4: Safety Management Systems, 19 December 2012
- SMS elements in ICAO, Safety Management Manual (SMM),Doc 9859
- Health and Safety and Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act)
This methodology is suitable for application to all organisations in both the aviation industry and outside of aviation.
At the completion of an audit we prepare an audit report which includes our assessment of the level of compliance with each of the audit standards and recommendations for addressing an short comings identified.
The government has announced its reform package for workplace health & safety. In this post we outline the key features of the reform package, with particular attention to the new concept of a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking, the positive duty of due diligence on those with a governance role, and exceptions to the due diligence duty.
The press release from Labour Minister Simon Bridges summarises the reform package as including: 1
- “an overhaul of the law, supported by clear, consistent guidelines and information for business on their requirements;
- more funding for WorkSafe New Zealand to strengthen enforcement and education and implement the changes;
- a focus on high risk areas;
- stronger focus on occupational harm and hazardous substances;
- better coordination between government agencies;
- improved worker participation;
- stronger penalties, enforcement tools and court powers.”
New Act and Regulations
Under the reforms, the current Health and Safety in Employment Act will be replaced by the new Health and Safety at Work Bill. This Bill will be modelled on Australian legislation and will be introduced into Parliament in December 2013. MBIE states that “The new law and key supporting regulations are expected to start coming into force from the end of 2014." 2
Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking
Under the new legislation, the separate obligations for employers, principals to a contract, and persons in control of a place of work will be replaced by clearer obligations on a “Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking” (PCBU). There will be: 2
- “a clearer test to determine what is a ‘reasonably practicable’ action for PCBUs to take, given risk and other circumstances;
- a positive due diligence duty so that those with governance roles in firms and organisations [i.e. directors and chief executives] must actively manage workplace health and safety, and will face consequences if they fail to perform their duties; and
- a modified penalties structure."
Exceptions in the Due Diligence Regime
The question and answer document released with the reform package notes an important exemption from the due diligence regime: anyone acting on a voluntary basis who receives only out-of-pocket expenses is excluded from the due diligence duty. “As a result, members of a school board of trustees will not have a due diligence duty, nor would an unpaid director of a company.” 4
The due diligence duty is also exercised on an individual basis and not collectively. This means that “If the officer exercises due diligence, they cannot be liable regardless of the conduct of the PCBU or other officers.” 5
To Find Out More
To read more about the reform package, visit the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment webpage at http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform.
If any of these reforms are of concern, or you would like to understand more about how the reforms might affect you, please contact us.
Endnotes
[1] Simon Bridges “Major reform of workplace health and safety”, press release, 7 August 2013. Available online at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/major-reform-workplace-health-and-safety
[2] MBIE health and safety reform webpage http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/workplace-health-and-safety-reform
[3] Working Safer: A blueprint for health & safety at work, August 2013, p. 15. This document can be downloaded from the MBIE webpage listed above.
[4] "Questions and Answers", undated, page 3. This document can be downloaded from Simon Bridges' online press release and from the MBIE webpage.
[5] See 4 above.
The Department of Labour publishes statistics on health and safety prosecutions, starting at 2006. The chart below shows the average fines and reparations per charge for each year from 2006 to 2011. Data for 2012 is not yet available.
Prior to 2008, the average fine + reparation was just $18,500. From 2008 onwards, the average has been approximately $44,200. The clear step change appears to be the result of a combination of a change in the maximum penalties available under the law and a successful appeal by the Department of Labour.
Another notable feature from the chart is that average fines steadily increased from approximately $5,600 in 2006 to approximately $28,900 in 2010.
The true cost to a business of a health and safety conviction is much higher than these figures. A single prosecution may include multiple charges: the figures shown in the chart are per convicted charge. In addition there are: the legal fees involved in a defence - which could start at around $20,000; the lost productivity from the accident; and the lost productivity from the staff and management involved in the defence.
Could your business withstand a $60,000 cash flow "hit"? Make sure you have your Health & Safety systems in place and integrated into your standard operations. Please contact us to discuss how we can help.
A headline in today's NZ Herald reads " NZ workplace safety a 'national disgrace' - consultant". The consultant in question is not from Enduro Safety, but we whole-heartedly agree with the message: health and safety is often non-existent in small and medium enterprises, and this situation must change.
Systems do not need to be onerous and excessively time consuming. Health and Safety can become an integral part of the way that work is done. If you need assistance with any Health & Safety matters, or even to work out what assistance you might need, please contact us. We can help with accident registers and procedures, emergency procedures, hazard registers, easy-to-apply risk management tools, and audits.
The final report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was publicly released on 5 November 2012. While many of the report's 16 recommendations are naturally focussed on Health & Safety in mining, four of the recommendations have much wider application:
- Recommendation 1: To improve New Zealand’s poor record in health and safety, a new Crown agent focusing solely on health and safety should be established.
- Recommendation 5: The statutory responsibilities of directors for health and safety in the workplace should be reviewed to better reflect their governance responsibilities.
- Recommendation 6: The health and safety regulator should issue an approved code of practice to guide directors on how good governance practices can be used to manage health and safety risks.
- Recommendation 7: Directors should rigorously review and monitor their organisation’s compliance with health and safety law and best practice.
Coming on top of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health & Safety, it seems likely that there will indeed be a shake-up of Health & Safety regulation in the coming months. The Government has set a target of reducing workplace deaths and injuries by 25% by the year 2020. This will not be achieved by doing nothing, and it seems likely that we will see a new Crown Agency responsible for Occupational Safety & Health matters, with potentially increased focus on workplace audits.
Talk to Enduro Safety if you need further advice on Health & Safety issues. We can advise on the most suitable course of action for your business, and provide advice on the link between good governance and Health & Safety.
|
|
