As stated above this is now a reality
People get hung up on needing something that doesn’t fit their situation but is in the regs
If you have a valid reason why you don’t need something and you have the experience to back this up then this will be accepted
Experience is a big one for me, I don’t give a fart if they have dived with sharks, done ten coastal or run Fletchers Building, you never know how people will react until your out of sight of land and the sea state and wind gets up. In my experience about half at this point no longer want to be there.
Sounds about right Jon. I've said before on this site, my opinion of the cat one regs is that they are more flexible in practice than they look in writing, the inspectors are normally reasonable, and there is little in the regs that I wouldn't comply with if left to my own devices.
I think the ongoing, sometimes heated discussion complaining about them are mostly just people don't like being dictated to. Some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow, again IMO, because no officials or organizations want to be first to accept new stuff, and therefore potentially have some liability.
I agree with both the posts above, accept that, given current track record, I wouldn't use Fletchers as an example of a successful business.
But specifically I agree that, when discussed with an inspector, there is flexibility in the current regs. The main issue is that this is not conveyed by the current inspection system. Its an exception rather than the norm.
I think pulling apart some of IT's comments gives some insights into how the overall system can be improved. Specifically that some parts are outdated, and updates are very slow. But that many parts are valuable and do work well.
I'm kind of struggling to verbalise how to explain it, but its basically to do with the 'culture' of the system. When you first read the safety requirements, they come across as a prescriptive list. This is a 'compliance culture', being, if you do all of this (tick box list) then you shall comply.
By having a risk based system, the message is "the skipper must think about and address all of these issues in order to be safe". The culture change is from 'compliance culture' to 'risk management culture'.
Possibly the best example of this in action is again in industry. Construction companies (successful ones, not Fletchers) do not have H&S reps writing up SoP's in isolation in their office anymore. They ask the guys doing the work (the guys in the trenches, driving the cranes or fabricating on a motorway bridge pile) how they do their job, how they could do their job better, and what it is they need to do it better and safely. Sure, there is still mandatory requirements, like drug and alcohol policies, but otherwise the ownership is given collectively to the guys doing the work. It empowers the workers to think and also take ownership and pride in what they are doing. This is how strong and effective safety cultures are created.
The parallel here is effectively getting YNZ to ask the skipper how they are going to manage the risks, but mandating the risk topics to be addressed. It sounds like, with the Platino documents requirements they are most of the way there. If the enthuses is removed from the list of requirements, the focus then shifts to the risk management documents. In reality, I'd expect the existing list of requirements becomes a reference document. And for those confused that what I am saying sounds like what is already there, the fundamental change in the system is the placement of ownership and a change in the culture around the system. I hope that makes sense.
I'd be curious to know how this all lines up with the processes used for risk management of race organisation, i.e. the risk management protocols for the SSANZ racing etc?