CAP 790 Comment Submission Form
SecondaryConsultation on Proposed New CAP 790 Airside Driving
Please complete this form on-line and then save a copy.
To submit the form, use this link and attach the saved copy. /
Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004). If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals with, amongst other things, obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential.If we receive a request for disclosure of information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the CAA. The CAA will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and, in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
Contact DetailsTitle:Mr. / Job Title:Passenger Services Operative
Initials:J. D. / Aerodrome/Organisation:Heathrow/Unite HLC
Surname: Purdom
E-mail:
CAP 790 Airside Driving has been jointly developed by a sub-group of the CAA Ground Handling Operations Safety Team (GHOST) and the Aerodrome Operators Association (AOA) Operations and Safety Working Group. Following the initial consultation on CAP 790 Airside Driving (August 2010), the sub-group has met a number of times, considered the comments received and further refined the draft. Consultation has also taken place with the Health and Safety Executive, in particular on the medical standards for workplace driving.
Below is a form to enable comments against specific paragraphs to be submitted. Please note that as this is a secondary consultation the period for comment is set at 6 weeks.
CAP 790 DRAFT (August 2011)Chapter/Section/Paragraph / Comment
Chapter 2, section 1.1 / “The aerodrome operator shall publish rules governing the movement of vehicles and mobile equipment in the airside areas(*)”. Unite HLC (Heathrow Liaison Committee) views this direction as too vague and believe that this will permit the aerodrome operator to discharge its duties under CAP 790 without fully understanding the nature of the day to day problems experienced by airside drivers. Unite represents over 40,000 workers at Heathrow, including almost all of those who are members of a trade union and who carry out airside driving duties. The HLC proposes that the words “after meaningful consultation with employee representatives” be inserted into section 1.1.
Chapter 2, section 2.2 / “Based on a local risk assessment(*) relating to local procedures, environment, infrastructure, topography, complexity and how busy the environment is, the aerodrome operator may require that certain medical checks or assessmentsare carried out as part of the ADP application process; these should be based on the HSE guidance”. The HLC views that risk assessments should only be carried out in consultation with the trained health and safety representatives of those who carry out these functions (as do the HSE). We propose that the words “in meaningful consultation with relevant health and safety representatives” be inserted into 2.2.
Chapter 2, section 3.1 (i) / “The aerodrome operator, in line with their SMS procedures, may implement rules and procedures to manage driving behaviour”. As a body committed to improved safety standards at Heathrow Airport, the HLC proposes that the word “may” be changed to “should” and that the words “in meaningful consultation with airport employers and employee representatives” be added at the end of the sentence.
Chapter 2, section 3.1 (ii) / The rest of section 3.1 is ambiguous and does not make clear the obligations under CAP 790. The HLC believes that driving failures, (as with the HSE statistic on safety failures) are in around 70% of cases due to managerial deficiencies. It is our view that the driving standards of the vehicle user should not be taken is isolation, but considered together with the following –
1. Adequacy of vehicle specific, task specific and locality specific training
2. Levels of supervision
3. Maintenance standards of vehicles
4. The suitability of the vehicle for the specific task
5.The pressure from employers to complete tasks within the available “turnaround time” before a flight’s allocated take off slot
Secondly, the HLC has concerns over the way in which driving standards are currently monitored. There needs to be clarity over the following –
1. Who specifically can issue a penalty for a driving infringement
2. What training is required of those who monitor driving standards and issue penalties
3. What equipment should be provided to those carrying out such monitoring
4. How an alleged driving infringement is recorded, how such records are managed and how and when the person alleged to have committed an infringement is informed and provided with this information
Thirdly, it is our view that a penalty system will fail to improve safety standards unless –
1. The investigation of all the circumstances is adequate
2. The person or persons (not always the driver) who is primarily responsible for an infringement is held to account
3. The penalties are appropriate to the offence and issued in a fair and consistent manner
Lastly, the HLC has very substantial concerns that the CAA does not specify how appeals should be carried out. There is evidence that an aerodrome operator might choose to carry out the appeals procedure in such a way as to minimise the amount of time and expense to itself, with the consequence that a person accused of an infringement is not allowed to present their case, the true reasons behind the circumstances are not identified, the person mostly responsible for an infringement remains unknown and safety standards are not improved. We would suggest that since a penalty could ultimately result in an individual losing their job, that any appeals procedure should be broadly compliant with the principles laid out in –
1. The ACAS code of practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
2. The 1999 Employment Relations Act (as amended)
In view of the above, the HLC proposes that the title of section 3.1 be amended to “Management of Driving Standards and Safe Use of Airside Vehicles“.
Chapter 2, section 3.1 (iii) / We would draw the CAA’s attention to a number of incidents and issues that have rendered the current system of management of airside driving safety less effective than it should be -
1. Giving the right of appeal to the employer, not the driver. This denies the aerodrome operator the opportunity (and obligation) to fully investigate the underlying causes of an incident and whether a company at the airport is implementing unsafe procedures for its drivers. It also denies the driver the opportunity to present their case.
2. Failing to give the driver a clear right to be represented at any investigation or appeal (since amended at Heathrow).
3. Monitors not provided with equipment to measure speed, alleging drivers of vehicles without speedometers to have exceeded the speed limit.
4. Monitors alleging that vehicles are unsafe for not possessing wing mirrors, when said vehicles were not designed to be fitted with mirrors and not required to possess other than a single rear view mirror.
5. A failure of the aerodrome operator to consult with its own elected and trained H&S representatives and those of other companies when drafting its safety management system for airside driving standards and its enforcement. This would appear to contravene Statutory Instrument 1996 no. 1513 (Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1996, as amended), but it is acknowledged that it is poor H&S practice to ignore the experience of those who actually out the job function that is being regulated.
6. Incidents where it has been impossible to comply with road markings due to construction work and common sense should have been applied by monitors, but was not.
7. Failure by airport employers to distribute revised rules, safety notices and other relevant notices to their employees.
Failure to have an adequate appeal process means that management failings by employers and aerodrome operators will not be recorded. Drivers could potentially lose their ADP and their jobs because of such failures. The CAA should also be concerned that failure to identify managerial failures will mean that poor safety practices will not be rectified. Employers and aerodrome operators should be concerned that such a safety issue, if not addressed, might expose it to vicarious liability in the event of a serious accident.
Chapter 2 3.1 (iv) / To address the above concerns with section 3.1, the HLC proposes that the following sentences are added to the bottom of the section – “Where a breach of airside driving regulations is alleged, there should be sufficient investigation to identify if the breach actually occurred and if so, the underlying cause before a penalty is issued. If a penalty is issued against a driver, they should be offered the opportunity to appeal so that they can present their case. It is recommended that a driver alleged to have committed a breach is allowed to be represented by a companion of his or her choice, who is a trade union official or a workplace colleague”.
Notes / The Heathrow Liaison Committee is a Unite forum that is open to those members of that union whose work is at, or substantially connected with Heathrow Airport. It works jointly with other European union bodies in civil aviation through the European Transport Workers Federation on a number of issues, especially those relating to safety. The HLC endorses the position of the CBI and the TUC that safety matters are best addresses through a partnership approach between employers and trade unions.
If additional boxes are required, please click in the last right hand box and press the Tab key. This will generate a new line and may be repeated as often as required.
Second CAP 790 Consultation – August 2011